https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2448590



--- Comment #2 from Daniel BerrangĂ© <[email protected]> ---
Some notes for reviews:

* The 'sgx-pccs' functionality is in fact already present in Fedora, created as
a sub-RPM of 'linux-sgx'.  Historically PCCS was bundled with the general SGX
codebase, but in their 1.25 release of SGX DCAP, it was split off upstream into
its own git repository. This makes it practical to now package as a standalone
thing in Fedora, which is a very good benefit, as it needs frequent updates for
NodeJS security flaws. Once this package is approved and built in Fedora, I
will be updating linux-sgx to turn off the build of its own 'sgx-pccs' sub-RPMs
to avoid the clash. The upgrade path should be seemless since the RPMs have the
same names and versioning scheme.

* The 'sgx-pccs' RPM generates a metric tonne of rpmlint warnings. I've
addressed many issues, but feel the remaining ones are acceptable, or
unavoidable given the poor state / limitations of working with the NodeJS
ecosystem.

    sgx-pccs.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/pccs pccs
    sgx-pccs.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/pccs pccs
    sgx-pccs.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/pccs/ssl pccs
    sgx-pccs.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/pccs pccs
    sgx-pccs.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/pccs pccs
    sgx-pccs.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/pccs/ssl 750
    sgx-pccs.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/pccs 700

      => Intentional package integration choices

    sgx-pccs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pccs
    sgx-pccs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
    sgx-pccs.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate ['/var/log/pccs']

      => limitations of what's provided by upstream

     23 * zero-length
     11 * devel-file-in-non-devel-package
    186 * hidden-file-or-dir
         => NodeJS has no separation of dev env content from production
content,
            so when bundling nodejs package deps you get all sorts of
undesirable
            files such as those highlighted by rpmlint. While in theory we
could
            painstakingly analyse and remove much of it, it doesn't appear to
be
            a requirement of the nodejs packaging guidelines

     34 files-duplicate
         => I've listed the license files for every nodejs dep in %license,
            and inevitably many deps have the same license text and hardlinking
            does not work for files listed in %license.


-- 
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=2448590

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202448590%23c2

-- 
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new

Reply via email to