https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2456554
Jakub Jelen <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelen <[email protected]> --- > ## START: Set by rpmautospec I think the spec file posted above should be in the format how you want to import it into the dist git. This one looks like already pre-processed by copr somehow. I would suggest to keep one "source" spec file in some people.redhat.com or fedorapeople.org > local files = rpm.expand("%_specdir/fips-provider-next.spec") This is hashing different file than the package name. I guess using macro for the name will be less error prone (if it will be processed before the Name is defined). > Source3: openssl-%{osslver}.tar.gz Is this upstream OpenSSL release tarball? Should it have the full URL so it can be verified its the authentic release (ideally with gpg signature)? Or is this already patched openssl version? In that case, there should be a comment describing how this was created, from which repository and using which patches so it can be reproduced and verified. > BuildRequires: gcc clang > BuildRequires: coreutils, perl-interpreter, sed, zlib-devel, /usr/bin/cmp Any specific reason why some of the build requires are separated by whitespace and some with comma? Is it taken from the openssl spec file? Should we clean it up? > Patch101: 0001-Re-enable-FIPS-security-checks.patch Nit: I prefer to have the patches next to the sources and build requires after that, but thats probably matter of taste. > %global features kryoptic-lib/fips,kryoptic-lib/nssdb > ... > %cargo_generate_buildrequires -n -f fips,nssdb,ossl400 > ... > %cargo_build -n -f fips,nssdb,ossl400 > ... > %{cargo_license_summary} > ... > %{cargo_license -n -f fips,nssdb,ossl400} > LICENSE.dependencies > ... > %cargo_test -n -f fips,nssdb,ossl400 Please, use the %{features} macro for listing the features to make sure they are defined in one place (as discussed yesterday) and we do not need to keep them in sync at three different places Given that this bundles the whole OpenSSL sources, we will need likely a ticket, but we should do `Provides: bundled(openssl) = %{osslver}`, I think. Going through the packaging guidelines, how this will handle cryptographic policies? For the fips provider its probably not an issue, but for the generic purpose fips token, this might be useful to have answers for. I think this is mostly covered in the following issue and likely applies to kryoptic itself too: https://github.com/latchset/kryoptic/issues/319 > make the automated service complains that we should build in parallel: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. From what I see, OpenSSL does that so I would take an inspiration there: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openssl/blob/rawhide/f/openssl.spec#_257 > %define osslver 4.0.0-beta1 Please, try to use global per packaging guidelines where possible: [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:, %define osslver 4.0.0-beta1, %define srpmhash() %{lua:, %define __spec_install_post %{?__debug_package:%{__debug_install_post}} %{__arch_install_post} %{__os_install_post} pushd openssl-%{osslver} %{SOURCE4} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/ossl-modules/fips.so %{nil} > mkdir -p -m755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/ossl-modules > ... > mkdir -p -m755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/pkcs11 [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/pkcs11, /usr/lib64/ossl-modules I think these should be just created as root explicitly. Likely with something like: %attr(0755,root,root) %{_libdir}/pkcs11 %attr(0755,root,root) %{_libdir}/ossl-modules -- 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=2456554 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202456554%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
