[Bug 1428383] New: Review Request: compat-freerdp12 - Compatibility version of the FreeRDP client libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428383
Bug ID: 1428383 Summary: Review Request: compat-freerdp12 - Compatibility version of the FreeRDP client libraries Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: negativo17@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/compat-freerdp12.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/compat-freerdp12-1.2.0-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: Free implementation of the Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) protocol. This compatibility package only contains client libraries. Fedora Account System Username: slaanesh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428383
Luya Tshimbalanga luya@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |luya@fedoraproject.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |luya@fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428383
Luya Tshimbalanga luya@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428383
--- Comment #1 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya@fedoraproject.org --- Some suggestions:
%setup -qn FreeRDP-%{version}-beta1-android9 %patch0 -p1 %patch1 -p1 %patch2 -p1
Change it to %autosetup -p1 -n FreeRDP-%{version}-beta1-android9
Move LICENSE file to %license
Please fix: compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libfreerdp.so.1.2.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libfreerdp.so.1.2.0 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
Rpmlint (installed packages) generated the message below ---------------------------- compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfreerdp.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfreerdp.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libz.so.1 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfreerdp.so.1.2.0 /lib64/librt.so.1 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfreerdp.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libfreerdp.so.1.2.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libfreerdp.so.1.2.0 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfreerdp-client.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libssl.so.10 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfreerdp-client.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libcrypto.so.10 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfreerdp-client.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libz.so.1 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfreerdp-client.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libX11.so.6 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfreerdp-client.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libxkbfile.so.1 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfreerdp-client.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libjpeg.so.62 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfreerdp-client.so.1.2.0 /lib64/librt.so.1 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfreerdp-client.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfreerdp-client.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libwinpr.so.1.1.0 /lib64/libz.so.1 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libxfreerdp-client.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libxfreerdp-client.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libxkbfile.so.1 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libxfreerdp-client.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libjpeg.so.62 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libxfreerdp-client.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libssl.so.10 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libxfreerdp-client.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libcrypto.so.10 compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libxfreerdp-client.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libz.so.1
It would be nice to address them but they are just warning messages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428383
--- Comment #2 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/compat-freerdp12.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/compat-freerdp12-1.2.0-2.fc25.src.rpm
* Fri Mar 03 2017 Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com - 1.2.0-2 - Link libraries as needed, add license macro, use autosetup macro.
These can be ignored:
compat-freerdp12-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -> lobs, lib, lbs compat-freerdp12-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib compat-freerdp12-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
This would be nice to fix, but I don't know how:
compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libfreerdp.so.1.2.0 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428383
--- Comment #3 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya@fedoraproject.org ---
1(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #2)
This would be nice to fix, but I don't know how:
compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libfreerdp.so.1.2.0 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies. I found a similar review of that case https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198498
Also use %make_build which is the equivalent for make %{?_smp_mflags}
Once both above part are corrected, the review will be approved. Below lines are for formality.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* Apache", "zlib/libpng", "ISC", "Unicode strict", "BSL (v1.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "MPL (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 712 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/luya/Documents/fedora- packaging/review/1428383-compat-freerdp12/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: 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 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in compat- freerdp12-devel , compat-freerdp12-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: 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. [-]: %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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: [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]: 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 ------- Checking: compat-freerdp12-1.2.0-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm compat-freerdp12-devel-1.2.0-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm compat-freerdp12-debuginfo-1.2.0-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm compat-freerdp12-1.2.0-2.fc25.src.rpm compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libfreerdp.so.1.2.0 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list compat-freerdp12-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -> lobs, lib, lbs compat-freerdp12-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib compat-freerdp12-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: compat-freerdp12-debuginfo-1.2.0-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- compat-freerdp12.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libfreerdp.so.1.2.0 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list compat-freerdp12-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -> lobs, lib, lbs compat-freerdp12-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib compat-freerdp12-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Requires -------- compat-freerdp12 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXcursor.so.1()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXfixes.so.3()(64bit) libXi.so.6()(64bit) libXinerama.so.1()(64bit) libXrender.so.1()(64bit) libXv.so.1()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libcups.so.2()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libfreerdp-client.so.1.2()(64bit) libfreerdp.so.1.2()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgsm.so.1()(64bit) libgstapp-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstreamer-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstvideo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpulse.so.0()(64bit) libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) libwinpr.so.1.1()(64bit) libxkbfile.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
compat-freerdp12-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
compat-freerdp12-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake compat-freerdp12(x86-64) libfreerdp-client.so.1.2()(64bit) libfreerdp.so.1.2()(64bit) libwinpr.so.1.1()(64bit) libxfreerdp-client.so.1.2()(64bit) pkgconfig pkgconfig(libssl) pkgconfig(winpr) pkgconfig(zlib)
Provides -------- compat-freerdp12: compat-freerdp12 compat-freerdp12(x86-64) libfreerdp-client.so.1.2()(64bit) libfreerdp.so.1.2()(64bit) libwinpr.so.1.1()(64bit) libxfreerdp-client.so.1.2()(64bit)
compat-freerdp12-debuginfo: compat-freerdp12-debuginfo compat-freerdp12-debuginfo(x86-64)
compat-freerdp12-devel: cmake(FreeRDP) cmake(WinPR) compat-freerdp12-devel compat-freerdp12-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(freerdp) pkgconfig(winpr)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/audin-client-alsa.so compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/audin-client-pulse.so compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/audin-client.so compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/disp-client.so compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/drive-client.so compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/echo-client.so compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/parallel-client.so compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/printer-client.so compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/rdpei-client.so compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/rdpgfx-client.so compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/rdpsnd-client-alsa.so compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/rdpsnd-client-pulse.so compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/serial-client.so compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/tsmf-client-alsa-audio.so compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/tsmf-client-gstreamer-decoder.so compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/tsmf-client-pulse-audio.so compat-freerdp12: /usr/lib64/freerdp/tsmf-client.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/FreeRDP/FreeRDP/archive/1.2.0-beta1+android9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b4e7810d90ee8a81075674c4aa9412dcd5409980a653f9059c05969927253ca0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b4e7810d90ee8a81075674c4aa9412dcd5409980a653f9059c05969927253ca0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428383
Luya Tshimbalanga luya@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya@fedoraproject.org --- Reading about https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies, it looks like the system will take care of it and there is nothing else to do.
Do not forget to update other changes. That review is now APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428383
--- Comment #5 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/compat-freerdp12.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/compat-freerdp12-1.2.0-2.fc25.src.rpm
I managed to fix the SSL issue above and added the %make_build macro. rpmlint still reports about the hardcoding of ciphers but is actually not happening:
-settings->PermittedTLSCiphers = arg->Value ? _strdup("ALL:!ECDH") : NULL; +settings->PermittedTLSCiphers = arg->Value ? _strdup("PROFILE=SYSTEM") : NULL;
Thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428383
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/compat-freerdp12
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428383
Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2017-03-06 12:44:45
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428383
--- Comment #7 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #5)
-settings->PermittedTLSCiphers = arg->Value ? _strdup("ALL:!ECDH") : NULL; +settings->PermittedTLSCiphers = arg->Value ? _strdup("PROFILE=SYSTEM") : NULL;
Thanks for the review!
No problem, the guide suggested to remove the call should that line fails.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428383
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dominik@greysector.net
--- Comment #8 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- Sorry, but the package name doesn't follow Naming Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming#Multiple_packages_with_the_s...
This shouldn't have been approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428383
--- Comment #9 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #8)
Sorry, but the package name doesn't follow Naming Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: Naming#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name
This shouldn't have been approved.
It is a old convention name to retain compatibility. I'll take a note in a future.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com