Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1340269
Summary: | Review Request: keepassx0 - Cross-platform password manager | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Gwyn Ciesla <gwync> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | germano.massullo, gwync, jwakely, package-review, panemade, sgallagh |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | sgallagh:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-06-16 13:41:40 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Gwyn Ciesla
2016-05-26 22:07:45 UTC
Why are there so many forks of keypass? - We already have the keypass and keypassx packages. - I sometimes hear of keepass2... - Keepassx2 was just approved: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326875 - Now keepassx0? And no Keepassx1? This is all very confusing and some explanation could be refreshing... Benjamin, the short answer is that a mistake was made and people were accidentally forced to upgrade to the 2.x version which upgraded their database, but then downgraded again leading to their database being unusable. So we worked up a way to avoid this going forward which necessitated carrying both versions in the Fedora collection. See https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1569 for more detail than you could possibly want. Jon, I'll get started on this review right now. Sorry for the delay: holidays. tl;dr: A few minor issues. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file license.html is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - The source tarball location is incorrect. It should be: https://www.keepassx.org/releases/0.4.4/keepassx-0.4.4.tar.gz - The package includes sources licensed with BSD (3 clause). ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /dev/shm/1340269-keepassx0/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/mime, /usr/share/mimelnk/application, /usr/share/mimelnk, /usr/share/mime/packages [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/keepassx/i18n(keepassx), /usr/share/keepassx(keepassx), /usr/share/keepassx/icons(keepassx) [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. [-]: 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. [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]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in keepassx0 [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in keepassx0 [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: http://download.sf.net/keepassx/keepassx-0.4.4.tar.gz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [x]: update-mime-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package stores mime configuration in /usr/share/mime/packages. Note: mimeinfo files in: keepassx0 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in keepassx0-debuginfo [?]: 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. [-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: 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 1986560 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: keepassx0-0.4.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm keepassx0-debuginfo-0.4.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm keepassx0-0.4.4-1.fc25.src.rpm keepassx0.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extremly -> extremely, extreme keepassx0.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US urls -> curls, purls, hurls keepassx0.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US attachemts -> attachments, attache, schemata keepassx0.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization keepassx0.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided keepassx keepassx0.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary keepassx0 keepassx0.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/keepassx0.desktop keepassx keepassx0-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources keepassx0.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extremly -> extremely, extreme keepassx0.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US urls -> curls, purls, hurls keepassx0.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US attachemts -> attachments, attache, schemata keepassx0.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization keepassx0.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://download.sf.net/keepassx/keepassx-0.4.4.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: keepassx0-debuginfo-0.4.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm keepassx0-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory keepassx0.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extremly -> extremely, extreme keepassx0.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US urls -> curls, purls, hurls keepassx0.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US attachemts -> attachments, attache, schemata keepassx0.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization keepassx0.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided keepassx keepassx0.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary keepassx0 keepassx0.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/keepassx0.desktop keepassx keepassx0-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings. Requires -------- keepassx0 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXtst.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) keepassx0-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- keepassx0: application() application(keepassx0.desktop) keepassx0 keepassx0(x86-64) mimehandler(application/x-keepass) keepassx0-debuginfo: keepassx0-debuginfo keepassx0-debuginfo(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1340269 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Okay In case if this helps, as per commented in FESCo ticket, submitting an updated package here. SRPM: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/keepassx0-0.4.4-2.fc24.src.rpm SPEC: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/keepassx0.spec (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #4) > Okay In case if this helps, as per commented in FESCo ticket, submitting an > updated package here. > > SRPM: > https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/keepassx0-0.4.4-2.fc24.src.rpm > SPEC: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/keepassx0.spec I should have been more clear: it contains sources licensed with BSD 3-clause *in addition* to the GPLv2+ licensed files. According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios this needs to be: ``` # The entire source code is GPLv2+ except crypto/ which is BSD 3-clause License: GPLv2+ and BSD ``` I have tried to self-review this package and come up with following changes now - Fix Exec key in desktop file to keepassx0 - Add license breakup - Fix some English words spelling in %%description - Honor the compiler flags - Remove Obsolete Group tag Also, I kept license tag just as "GPLv2 and BSD" as there is only one file in GPLv2+ licensed. SRPM: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/keepassx0-0.4.4-3.fc24.src.rpm SPEC: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/keepassx0.spec Package approved. Thanks, Parag! I thought limb will request SCM admin and get this package built in Fedora but that has not happened. Let me request this package in pkgdb now. Note though I will be getting maintainership here by requesting this package, I will orphan or pass ownership to limb or anyone else interested once upgrade issue is fixed. Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/keepassx0 Parag, can you approve the f23 branch request please? keepassx0-0.4.4-3.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f1da178e94 Thanks Jon for building this package for f24+ branches. I have approved f23 branch request. Thank you! keepassx0-0.4.4-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-fcd957ca82 keepassx0-0.4.4-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f1da178e94 keepassx0-0.4.4-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-fcd957ca82 keypassx upstream refers to the 0.4.4 branch as "keepass 1", see e.g. the menu option "Import KeePass 1 database" and https://www.keepassx.org/faq/#q_2 Wouldn't 'keepassx1' be a better name for the binary? Not a big deal though, I can definitely live with keepassx0, thanks for resolving the situation nicely. keepassx0-0.4.4-4.fc23 keepassx-2.0.2-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-df0dfd42ce keepassx-2.0.2-3.fc23, keepassx0-0.4.4-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-df0dfd42ce keepassx0-0.4.4-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. keepassx-2.0.2-3.fc23, keepassx0-0.4.4-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |