https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2456554
Jakub Jelen <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelen <[email protected]> --- > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/pkcs11, > /usr/lib64/ossl-modules Not yet resolved. The following should go to the `%files` section: > %attr(0755,root,root) %{_libdir}/pkcs11 > %attr(0755,root,root) %{_libdir}/ossl-modules > [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream > publishes signatures. > Note: Sources 4 and 3 are not passed to gpgverify. Any reason why the OpenSSL tarball signatures are not checked here? And any reason why its not done on the OpenSSL rpm given that I already checked that and noticed? For the BuildRequires, I would prefer the space separation rather than the commas, but its not a big deal > fips-provider.x86_64: W: no-documentation Currently the spec file has description and summary, but no installed manual pages. Given that this is really not meant to be interacted with by users, I think its ok. But we need to make sure the documentation on fips-mode-setup or somewhere is up to date. > Uploading current fixed spec file as an attachment to this bug The automation needs the "Spec URL: " in the comment to kick in. The review template has few items that say justification would be helpful for "unversioned .so files" and few more so some comments around these might come handy: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2456554-fips-provider/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10309542-fips-provider/fedora-review/review.txt With the above fixed, it looks good to me. I can ack it for you according to the package review process or if you prefer another pair of eyes to have a look through that, please invite them in. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/ I double-checked the bundling requirements and did not find any specific process or ticket to open so I believe we are 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=2456554 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202456554%23c8 -- _______________________________________________ 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
