https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2456554
--- Comment #9 from Simo Sorce <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelen from comment #8) > > [ ]: 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 I tried this but I cannot seem to create a %files section because the cargo macros already do it. Besides this module doesn't won those directories. > > > > [ ]: 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? No idea, I guess it is because historically we were shipping hobbled tarballs. > 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. This is just a module and has no manpages whatsoever indeed. It needs to be handled in the openssl main package. > > 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 CAn you suggest what we should do? I do not even understand why the review tool woul dflag unversioned modeules that are not libraries shipped in the canonical /usr/lib64 directory, to me it just seem a bug in fedora-review. > 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. I will need help to address any of the issues you raise because I see no straightforward fixes here, esp the %files part. -- 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%23c9 -- _______________________________________________ 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
