[Bug 1768452] New: Review Request: zerotier-one - Smart Ethernet
Switch for Earth
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1768452
Bug ID: 1768452
Summary: Review Request: zerotier-one - Smart Ethernet Switch
for Earth
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/zerotier-one/fedora-...
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/zerotier-one/fedora-...
Description:
ZeroTier is a smart programmable Ethernet switch for planet Earth. It allows
all
networked devices, VMs, containers, and applications to communicate as if they
all reside in the same physical data center or cloud region.
This is accomplished by combining a cryptographically addressed and secure peer
to peer network (termed VL1) with an Ethernet emulation layer somewhat similar
to VXLAN (termed VL2). Our VL2 Ethernet virtualization layer includes advanced
enterprise SDN features like fine grained access control rules for network
micro-segmentation and security monitoring.
All ZeroTier traffic is encrypted end-to-end using secret keys that only you
control. Most traffic flows peer to peer, though we offer free (but slow)
relaying for users who cannot establish peer to peer connections.
The goals and design principles of ZeroTier are inspired by among other things
the original Google BeyondCorp paper and the Jericho Forum with its notion of
"deperimeterization."
Fedora Account System Username: atim
Working COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/atim/zerotier-one/
---
Since politics about bundling in Fedora eased a little bit i want to try push
this again. Old review request from another maintainer:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352169
The problem with few bundled components which upstream prefer to bundle because
of bugs which could happen if distro ship different versions of those
components:
https://github.com/zerotier/ZeroTierOne/pull/462#issuecomment-287913026
--
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
4 years, 5 months
[Bug 1765727] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-circle - Adjoint groups
of finite rings
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765727
Bug ID: 1765727
Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-circle - Adjoint groups of
finite rings
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: loganjerry(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-circle/gap-pkg-circle.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-circle/gap-pkg-circle-1.6.1-1.fc3...
RPMLINTRC URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-circle/gap-pkg-circle.rpmlintrc
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: Let R be an associative ring, not necessarily with a unit element.
The set of all elements of R forms a monoid with the neutral element 0 from R
under the operation r*s = r + s + rs defined for all r,s from R. This
operation is called 'circle multiplication'; it is also known as 'star
multiplication'. The monoid of elements of R under circle multiplication is
called the adjoint semigroup of R. The group of all invertible elements of
this monoid is called the adjoint group of R.
These notions naturally lead to a number of questions about the connection
between a ring and its adjoint group, for example, how the ring properties will
determine properties of the adjoint group; which groups can appear as adjoint
groups of rings; which rings can have adjoint groups with prescribed
properties, etc.
The main objective of the GAP package 'Circle' is to extend GAP functionality
for computations in adjoint groups of associative rings to make it possible to
use the GAP system for the investigation of such questions.
Circle provides functionality to construct circle objects that will respect
circle multiplication r*s = r + s + rs, create multiplicative groups, generated
by these objects, and compute groups of elements, invertible with respect to
this operation, for finite radical algebras and finite associative rings
without one.
--
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
4 years, 5 months
[Bug 1763285] Review Request: libnma - NetworkManager GUI library
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763285
Matthew Krupcale <mkrupcale(a)matthewkrupcale.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Matthew Krupcale <mkrupcale(a)matthewkrupcale.com> ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1495040 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libnma-1.8.26-3.fc32.x86_64.rpm
libnma-devel-1.8.26-3.fc32.x86_64.rpm
libnma-debuginfo-1.8.26-3.fc32.x86_64.rpm
libnma-debugsource-1.8.26-3.fc32.x86_64.rpm
libnma-1.8.26-3.fc32.src.rpm
libnma-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided NetworkManager-gtk-devel
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libnma-gtk4-debuginfo-1.8.26-3.fc32.x86_64.rpm
libnma-debuginfo-1.8.26-3.fc32.x86_64.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
LANGUAGE = (unset),
LC_ALL = (unset),
LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
LANGUAGE = (unset),
LC_ALL = (unset),
LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
libnma-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libnma/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
libnma-gtk4-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libnma/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
libnma.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libnma/
<urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
libnma-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libnma/
<urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
libnma-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided NetworkManager-gtk-devel
libnma-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libnma/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://download.gnome.org/sources/libnma/1.8/libnma-1.8.26.tar.xz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
4e419d5fe4f0360b25f9fe9223a4ed6da94984a5dcd999679856c78c46a334f1
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
4e419d5fe4f0360b25f9fe9223a4ed6da94984a5dcd999679856c78c46a334f1
Requires
--------
libnma (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
libgck-1.so.0()(64bit)
libgcr-base-3.so.1()(64bit)
libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libnm.so.0()(64bit)
libnm.so.0(libnm_1_0_0)(64bit)
libnm.so.0(libnm_1_2_0)(64bit)
libnm.so.0(libnm_1_6_0)(64bit)
libnm.so.0(libnm_1_8_0)(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
mobile-broadband-provider-info
rtld(GNU_HASH)
libnma-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
NetworkManager-libnm-devel
gtk3-devel(x86-64)
libnma(x86-64)
libnma.so.0()(64bit)
pkgconfig
pkgconfig(libnm)
libnma-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libnma-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
libnma:
libnma
libnma(x86-64)
libnma.so.0()(64bit)
libnma.so.0(libnma_1_2_0)(64bit)
libnma.so.0(libnma_1_8_0)(64bit)
libnma.so.0(libnma_1_8_12)(64bit)
libnma.so.0(libnma_1_8_20)(64bit)
libnma.so.0(libnma_1_8_22)(64bit)
libnma-devel:
libnma-devel
libnma-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(libnma)
libnma-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
libnma-debuginfo
libnma-debuginfo(x86-64)
libnma-debugsource:
libnma-debugsource
libnma-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --copr-build
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mkrupcale/package-review/build/10...
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }}
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Java, R, Perl, Python,
Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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
4 years, 5 months
[Bug 1763285] Review Request: libnma - NetworkManager GUI library
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763285
--- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> ---
Thank you.
(In reply to Matthew Krupcale from comment #3)
> A couple minor things I spotted after now building -gtk4 packages in rawhide
> and a bit more discussion on some points from the last review, and then this
> should be ready.
>
> > No, libnma doesn't obsolete libnma-gtk
>
> Okay, I suppose the network-manager-applet spec file libnm-gtk-devel package
> description was incorrect then.
>
> > I'll do that once the network-manager-applet package is updated and libnm-gtk is actually dropped.
>
> It looks like libnm-gtk{,devel} was last built in F28, though. So is this
> not already essentially dropped?
Ah, yes. The point still stands though -- fedora-obsolete-packages should
obsolete it.
> > No, it's the presence of %files section or lack thereof that decides whether a binary package is built. That is so by design.
>
> I only meant that the subpackages should not be defined in addition to the
> %files section being excluded. This was mainly just so it was clear for the
> reader only looking at the %package's what was built when, consistent with
> the %files. It's not a requirement as far as I can tell but only a
> suggestion.
I got that right. I'm not going to do that, it just seem to add noise.
> > Yes. This needs to get fixed upstream first: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libnma/merge_requests/5
>
> I believe you should go ahead and update the License: field and comment in
> the spec file (either around the License: field or in %files) about the
> shared/ license without having the COPYING.LGPL file included yet. In the
> next release you can include the file (assuming it's accepted upstream), but
> the license should still be correctly labeled.
Okay, done.
Note that this shouldn't have been necessary because the effective license was
correct:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22...
> > Yeah, it could be done, but it seems rather unnecessary to me at this point.
>
> I think it is good practice for three reasons:
> 1. Being noarch, the package can be built and installed anywhere
> 2. Reduces the repository size since the docs subpackages are not
> duplicated for each arch
> 3. Potentially reduces the download and install size for the user if docs
> are optional
>
> I don't believe this is a requirement, but I do think it's recommended,
> considering the size (>1 MB) of the documentation here.
No. This is a package that most people won't install, and is certainly not
going to be present in systems where 1 M matters at all.
> Issues:
> =======
> - mobile-broadband-provider-info only Required by -gtk4 but appears to be
> used by libnma as well
Fixed.
> - Spelling error in -gtk4-devel Summary: "exerimental" -> "experimental"
Fixed.
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/libnma.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/libnma-1.8.26-3.fc32.src.rpm
--
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
4 years, 5 months