https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite(a)emailplus.org --- Comment #1 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- Thanks for this. Is it possible to make a build on Copr or Koji to check that it will work on supported architectures, x86_64, AArch64 and ARM-hfp https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_... -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 --- Comment #3 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- Seems good. Need to check functionality. Unofficial review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD 2-Clause License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "*No copyright* Beerware License", "ISC License", "BSD 2-clause NetBSD License BSD 2-Clause License". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/libmd/2094582-libmd/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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. [-]: 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 30720 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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: [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://keys.openpgp.org/vks/v1/by-fingerprint/4F3E74F436050C10F5696574B9... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 56b3e6dc62d6de533d1a86621b3d3fe8f9523a83f2b19927a95cffb8b562150b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 56b3e6dc62d6de533d1a86621b3d3fe8f9523a83f2b19927a95cffb8b562150b https://libbsd.freedesktop.org/releases/libmd-1.0.4.tar.xz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 32deebe1cfab127ee69a3e8c8caf439e459b7cdcdd7535fe021cb485adc14057 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 32deebe1cfab127ee69a3e8c8caf439e459b7cdcdd7535fe021cb485adc14057 https://libbsd.freedesktop.org/releases/libmd-1.0.4.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f51c921042e34beddeded4b75557656559cf5b1f2448033b4c1eec11c07e530f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f51c921042e34beddeded4b75557656559cf5b1f2448033b4c1eec11c07e530f Requires -------- libmd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libmd(x86-64) libmd.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig libmd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libmd: libmd libmd(x86-64) libmd.so.0()(64bit) libmd.so.0(LIBMD_0.0)(64bit) libmd-devel: libmd-devel libmd-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libmd) libmd-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libmd-debuginfo libmd-debuginfo(x86-64) libmd.so.0.0.5-1.0.4-1.fc37.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libmd-debugsource: libmd-debugsource libmd-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2094582 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 --- Comment #5 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- That is correct. Unofficial review. Trying to get the following packaged: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075949 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813687 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091282 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389 -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- QA Contact|benson_muite(a)emailplus.org |extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal) Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- Licensecheck.txt contains: *No copyright* Beerware License ------------------------------- libmd-1.0.4/man/md2.3 libmd-1.0.4/man/md4.3 libmd-1.0.4/man/md5.3 libmd-1.0.4/man/mdX.3 libmd-1.0.4/src/helper.c libmd-1.0.4/src/md2hl.c libmd-1.0.4/src/md4hl.c libmd-1.0.4/src/md5hl.c libmd-1.0.4/src/rmd160hl.c libmd-1.0.4/src/sha1hl.c libmd-1.0.4/src/sha256hl.c libmd-1.0.4/src/sha384hl.c libmd-1.0.4/src/sha512hl.c *No copyright* Public domain ---------------------------- libmd-1.0.4/include/md4.h libmd-1.0.4/include/md5.h libmd-1.0.4/src/md4.c libmd-1.0.4/src/md5.c BSD 2-Clause License -------------------- libmd-1.0.4/include/rmd160.h libmd-1.0.4/src/rmd160.c BSD 2-clause NetBSD License BSD 2-Clause License ------------------------------------------------ libmd-1.0.4/src/md2.c BSD 3-Clause License -------------------- libmd-1.0.4/COPYING libmd-1.0.4/get-version libmd-1.0.4/include/ripemd.h libmd-1.0.4/include/sha.h libmd-1.0.4/include/sha2.h libmd-1.0.4/include/sha256.h libmd-1.0.4/include/sha512.h libmd-1.0.4/src/local-link.h libmd-1.0.4/src/sha2.c libmd-1.0.4/test/md2.c libmd-1.0.4/test/md4.c libmd-1.0.4/test/md5.c libmd-1.0.4/test/rmd160.c libmd-1.0.4/test/sha1.c libmd-1.0.4/test/sha2.c libmd-1.0.4/test/test.h FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) ---------------------------------------------- libmd-1.0.4/m4/ltoptions.m4 libmd-1.0.4/m4/ltsugar.m4 libmd-1.0.4/m4/ltversion.m4 libmd-1.0.4/m4/lt~obsolete.m4 FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ libmd-1.0.4/m4/libtool.m4 FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file] --------------------------------------------------------------- libmd-1.0.4/aclocal.m4 FSF Unlimited License [generated file] -------------------------------------- libmd-1.0.4/configure GNU General Public License v2.0 or later ---------------------------------------- libmd-1.0.4/build-aux/ltmain.sh GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file] --------------------------------------------------------- libmd-1.0.4/build-aux/ar-lib libmd-1.0.4/build-aux/compile libmd-1.0.4/build-aux/depcomp libmd-1.0.4/build-aux/missing libmd-1.0.4/build-aux/test-driver GNU General Public License v3.0 or later ---------------------------------------- libmd-1.0.4/build-aux/config.guess libmd-1.0.4/build-aux/config.sub ISC License ----------- libmd-1.0.4/man/rmd160.3 libmd-1.0.4/man/sha1.3 libmd-1.0.4/man/sha2.3 Public domain code seems to no longer be allowed, though want to check if this applies here. The spec could also be more descriptive in the license breakdown. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 --- Comment #9 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- Minor point, but the FSF licensed files are not in COPYING. Most other spec files also have the breakdown in them. What you have seems sufficient. Thanks for your contribution. -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 --- Comment #10 from Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla(a)linuxnetz.de&gt; --- Benson, did I overlook something? At https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/, "Public Domain" is marked as allowed (for any use). Did you maybe mix up "CC0" (allowed-content) and "Public Domain" somehow? Correct, but why should they? These files are not the actual software/code itself, just files generated by autoconf, automake, libtool et al. for the release tarball (like at many other projects). -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 --- Comment #12 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- Thanks. For CC0 see https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.o... maybe md4.c, md5.c, md4.h and md5.h can be replaced with other implementations? -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(redhat-bugzilla@l | |inuxnetz.de) --- Comment #14 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- Thanks for the update. Can the spec file be update appropriately with the license information in the submitted package. -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rfontana(a)redhat.com Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ | |needinfo?(rfontana(a)redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #16 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- Approved. Have removed the legal block, hope that is ok. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-f13d8dc6db has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f13d8dc6db -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-54863c070a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-54863c070a -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7a50056ac1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7a50056ac1 -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-00481ef4a1 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-00481ef4a1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-00481ef4a1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7a50056ac1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7a50056ac1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-527b1fd790 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-527b1fd790 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-09-19 00:19:33 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-00481ef4a1 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-0f15aae53d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=2094582

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582 --- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-527b1fd790 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=2094582