[Bug 2241620] Review Request: gocryptfs - Encrypted overlay filesystem written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241620 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. |needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com |com)|) Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #5 from Jerry James --- Okay, those changes look good. This 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=2241620 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202241620%23c5 ___ 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 2241620] Review Request: gocryptfs - Encrypted overlay filesystem written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241620 --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 129838 golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/rfjakob/gocryptfs/Documentation/CLI_ABI.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel/Documentation/CLI_ABI.md golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/rfjakob/gocryptfs/Documentation/MANPAGE-STATFS.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel/Documentation/MANPAGE-STATFS.md golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/rfjakob/gocryptfs/Documentation/MANPAGE-XRAY.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel/Documentation/MANPAGE-XRAY.md golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/rfjakob/gocryptfs/Documentation/MANPAGE.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel/Documentation/MANPAGE.md golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/rfjakob/gocryptfs/Documentation/SECURITY.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel/Documentation/SECURITY.md golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/rfjakob/gocryptfs/Documentation/XFSTESTS.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel/Documentation/XFSTESTS.md golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/rfjakob/gocryptfs/Documentation/extractloop.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel/Documentation/extractloop.md golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/rfjakob/gocryptfs/Documentation/file-format.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel/Documentation/file-format.md golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/rfjakob/gocryptfs/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel/README.md Worked on this in the latest golist release: https://pagure.io/golist/releases -- 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=2241620 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202241620%23c4 ___ 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 2241620] Review Request: gocryptfs - Encrypted overlay filesystem written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241620 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com |needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. |) |com) --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: openssl1.1-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ H, fedora-review came up with this issue on its own. The funny thing is that I do not see openssl1.1-devel in root.log, so it wasn't even installed. I suspect that fedora-review saw that this package BuildRequires both pkgconfig(libcrypto) and pkgconfig(openssl), and saw that openssl1.1-devel, a deprecated package, Provides both of those. Well, openssl-devel Provides them, too. I'm not sure what the right thing to do is here. Perhaps this package should BuildRequires: openssl-devel explicitly to be sure that openssl1.1-devel can't be used to fulfill the BuildRequires? -> Now depending on BuildRequires: pkgconfig(openssl) > 3.0.0 - Can you remove /usr/share/doc/gocryptfs/Documentation/.gitignore from the binary package? I don't see why MANPAGE-render.bash should be there either. Both files are also in golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel. -> Now picking only md and txt files %global godocs README.md Documentation/*.txt Documentation/*.md\\\ Documentation/*.png %doc README.md Documentation/*.txt Documentation/*.md Documentation/*.png - There are man pages in /usr/share/doc/gocryptfs/Documentation. Some are also in /usr/share/man/man1, and some aren't. Shouldn't they all be there instead of in the Documentation directory? The man pages are also in the golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel, which doesn't seem right since that package contains no binaries. See above. - There are no debuginfo or debugsource packages for the gocryptfs package, which contains binaries. Shouldn't there be? Indeed. Removed the disabling of it. Also since we're statically linked, we need t add the licenses of the deps: # License for github.com/rfjakob/gocryptfs/v2: MIT # License for github.com/aperturerobotics/jacobsa-crypto: Apache-2.0 # License for github.com/hanwen/go-fuse/v2: BSD-3-Clause # License for github.com/moby/sys/mountinfo: Apache-2.0 # License for github.com/pkg/xattr: BSD-2-Clause # License for github.com/rfjakob/eme: MIT # License for github.com/sabhiram/go-gitignore: MIT # License for github.com/spf13/pflag: BSD-3-Clause # License for golang.org/x/crypto: BSD-3-Clause # License for golang.org/x/sys: BSD-3-Clause # License for golang.org/x/term: BSD-3-Clause License:MIT AND BSD-3-Clause AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gocryptfs.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gocryptfs-2.4.0-1.fc39.src.rpm Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/eclipseo/gocryptfs/build/6577981/ Fedora-revew template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eclipseo/gocryptfs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06577981-gocryptfs/fedora-review/review.txt Thanks for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241620 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202241620%23c3 ___ 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 2241620] Review Request: gocryptfs - Encrypted overlay filesystem written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241620 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) -- 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=2241620 ___ 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 2241620] Review Request: gocryptfs - Encrypted overlay filesystem written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241620
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
Note: openssl1.1-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/deprecating-packages/
H, fedora-review came up with this issue on its own. The funny thing is
that I do not see openssl1.1-devel in root.log, so it wasn't even installed.
I suspect that fedora-review saw that this package BuildRequires both
pkgconfig(libcrypto) and pkgconfig(openssl), and saw that openssl1.1-devel,
a deprecated package, Provides both of those. Well, openssl-devel Provides
them, too. I'm not sure what the right thing to do is here. Perhaps this
package should BuildRequires: openssl-devel explicitly to be sure that
openssl1.1-devel can't be used to fulfill the BuildRequires?
- Can you remove /usr/share/doc/gocryptfs/Documentation/.gitignore from the
binary package? I don't see why MANPAGE-render.bash should be there either.
Both files are also in golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel.
- There are man pages in /usr/share/doc/gocryptfs/Documentation. Some are also
in /usr/share/man/man1, and some aren't. Shouldn't they all be there instead
of in the Documentation directory? The man pages are also in the
golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel, which doesn't seem right since that
package contains no binaries.
- There are no debuginfo or debugsource packages for the gocryptfs package,
which contains binaries. Shouldn't there be?
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 559702 bytes in 40 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package 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]: Pa
[Bug 2241620] Review Request: gocryptfs - Encrypted overlay filesystem written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241620 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this review. -- 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=2241620 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202241620%23c1 ___ 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
