https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196274
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zbyszek@in.waw.pl Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- This isn't really relevant for the review, but a hint to save work:
# https://github.com/actor-framework/actor-framework/commit/db5fd0b2f56e4df14f... Patch0: actor-framework-fix-tools.patch
I'd write this as Patch: https://github.com/actor-framework/actor-framework/commit/db5fd0b2f56e4df14f... This has the advantage that 'spectool -g *.spec' will just download the file without further ado.
License: BSD-3-Clause OR BSL-1.0
I think this needs to be "AND" instead. The sources are under the first license, but they are also combined with some other (header) files to form the compiled product. The result must then satisfy both licenses, i.e. is under the first and the second license.
actor-framework-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary caf-run actor-framework-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary caf-vec actor-framework-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation actor-framework-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Meh.
actor-framework.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libcaf_openssl.so.0.19.1 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
This one is fairly problematic. The code does: SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list(ctx, "HIGH:!aNULL:!MD5") https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/#_c... says:
check the source code for SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list(). If it is not present then nothing needs to be done (the default is used). Otherwise, if that call is present and provided a fixed string which does not contain PSK or SRP, replace the string with "PROFILE=SYSTEM", or remove the call.
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s
Quoting Frostyx's review service:
Requires (with glibc and linker stuff removed) -------- actor-framework (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libcaf_core.so.0.19.1()(64bit) libcaf_io.so.0.19.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit)
actor-framework-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): actor-framework(x86-64) cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libcaf_core.so.0.19.1()(64bit) libcaf_io.so.0.19.1()(64bit) libcaf_net.so.0.19.1()(64bit) libcaf_openssl.so.0.19.1()(64bit)
actor-framework-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): actor-framework(x86-64) libcaf_core.so.0.19.1()(64bit) libcaf_io.so.0.19.1()(64bit)
actor-framework-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
actor-framework-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- actor-framework: actor-framework actor-framework(x86-64) libcaf_core.so.0.19.1()(64bit) libcaf_io.so.0.19.1()(64bit) libcaf_net.so.0.19.1()(64bit) libcaf_openssl.so.0.19.1()(64bit)
actor-framework-devel: actor-framework-devel actor-framework-devel(x86-64) cmake(CAF) cmake(caf)
actor-framework-tools: actor-framework-tools actor-framework-tools(x86-64)
Looks all good. (Or even better than "good". The spec file is very clean.)
+ package name is OK + license is acceptable for Fedora (BSD-3-Clause) - license is specified correctly (see above) + builds and installs OK + BR/P/R look correct + no scriptlets needed or present - rpmlint finds one issue (see above)