[Bug 1409867] New: Review Request: python2-btchip - 'btchip-python' is a library used to interface with Ledger hardware devices ( Cryptocurrency)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
Bug ID: 1409867 Summary: Review Request: python2-btchip - 'btchip-python' is a library used to interface with Ledger hardware devices (Cryptocurrency) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mike@mgoodwin.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://github.com/xenithorb/btchip-python-spec/blob/master/python2-btchip.s...
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xenithorb/btchip-python/fedo...
Description:
btchip-python is a python API for communicating primarily with the Ledger HW.1 hardware bitcoin wallet. This library is also adds compatibility to Electrum in order to use the "Nano", "Nano S", and other Ledger-based hardware wallets.
Fedora Account System Username: xenithorb
Additional info: The primary purpose for my packaging this python library is for use with the recently-packaged Electrum bitcoin wallet. Electrum can take advantage of this library in order to use Ledger-based hardware wallets, and the current method to use this in Fedora is to `sudo pip install btchip-python` which affects (obv.) global python packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org --- You should split the package like described here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Common_SRPM_vs_split_SRPMs
You should also use the template used in the Example common spec file section on the Packaging Guidelines for Python. The one you use is to support older EPEL versions.
Fedora Packaging Guidelines for Python:
If a piece of software supports python3, it must be packaged for python3.
Lets see if it works with python3. If not then we do not build it.
Source0: https://github.com/LedgerHQ/%%7Bsrcname%7D/archive/v%%7Bversion%7D.tar.gz
This is a personal preference, but I like to download the release from the Python Package Index / pythonhosted.org, since that is what upstream publish.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
--- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #1)
You should split the package like described here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Common_SRPM_vs_split_SRPMs
You should also use the template used in the Example common spec file section on the Packaging Guidelines for Python. The one you use is to support older EPEL versions.
Fedora Packaging Guidelines for Python:
If a piece of software supports python3, it must be packaged for python3.
Lets see if it works with python3. If not then we do not build it.
Source0: https://github.com/LedgerHQ/%%7Bsrcname%7D/archive/v%%7Bversion%7D.tar.gz
This is a personal preference, but I like to download the release from the Python Package Index / pythonhosted.org, since that is what upstream publish.
However, it's preprocessed source and usually doesn't contain license and/or tests. Real source (github) is always better.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
--- Comment #3 from Mike Goodwin mike@mgoodwin.net --- (In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #1)
You should split the package like described here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Common_SRPM_vs_split_SRPMs
You should also use the template used in the Example common spec file section on the Packaging Guidelines for Python. The one you use is to support older EPEL versions.
This library does not yet support python3, so is the preferred method then to use the common spec here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file and then just comment out all the python3 related items?
Fedora Packaging Guidelines for Python:
If a piece of software supports python3, it must be packaged for python3.
Lets see if it works with python3. If not then we do not build it.
It doesn't
Source0: https://github.com/LedgerHQ/%%7Bsrcname%7D/archive/v%%7Bversion%7D.tar.gz
This is a personal preference, but I like to download the release from the Python Package Index / pythonhosted.org, since that is what upstream publish.
I'd prefer to stay with github if it's all the same. I have it added here as well: https://release-monitoring.org/project/12767/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org --- (In reply to Mike Goodwin from comment #3)
This library does not yet support python3, so is the preferred method then to use the common spec here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file and then just comment out all the python3 related items?
Yes, the name of the package without the 2-suffix, while the the name of the sub-package should include a 2-suffix.
python-trezor is simular, it does not work with python3 yet, see http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/python-trezor.git/tree/python-trezor... for an example.
Lets see if it works with python3. If not then we do not build it.
It doesn't
No worries.
I'd prefer to stay with github if it's all the same. I have it added here as well: https://release-monitoring.org/project/12767/
Just use github
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
--- Comment #5 from Mike Goodwin mike@mgoodwin.net --- Updated:
SPEC: https://github.com/xenithorb/btchip-python-spec/blob/master/python-btchip.sp...
SRPM: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9054/17159054/python-btchip-0...
Passed all rpmlint with no errors/warnings, and built on koji
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
--- Comment #6 from Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
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: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 22 files have unknown license. btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/btchipKeyRecovery.py btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/msqr.py btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalization00start.py btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalization01seed.py btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalization02security.py btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalization03config.py btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalization04finalize.py btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalizationseedbackup01.py btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalizationseedbackup02.py btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalizationseedbackup03.py btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalizationseedbackup04.py btchip-python-0.1.18/tests/testMultisigArmory.py btchip-python-0.1.18/tests/testMultisigArmoryNo2FA.py btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-00-start.ui btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-01-seed.ui btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-02-security.ui btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-03-config.ui btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-04-finalize.ui btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-seedbackup-01.ui btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-seedbackup-02.ui btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-seedbackup-03.ui btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-seedbackup-04.ui
Please contact upstream to clarify licensing. Best if they put proper license header and release new version.
[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. [-]: 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]: 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 10240 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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
Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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]: 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. Your comment in the .spec file explains why it is disabled. [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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-btchip-0.1.18-2.fc26.noarch.rpm python-btchip-0.1.18-2.fc26.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jonny/tmp/python-btchip.spec 2017-01-04 18:30:12.519562464 +0100 +++ /home/jonny/tmp/review-python-btchip/srpm-unpacked/python-btchip.spec 2017-01-03 23:35:11.000000000 +0100 @@ -3,5 +3,5 @@ %global sum Python communication library for Ledger Hardware Wallet products %global desc %{srcname} is a python API for communicating primarily with the \ -Ledger HW.1 hardware bitcoin wallet. This library also adds compatibility \ +Ledger HW.1 hardware bitcoin wallet. This library is also adds compatibility \ to Electrum in order to use the "Nano", "Nano S", and other Ledger-based \ hardware wallets. @@ -17,5 +17,5 @@
BuildArch: noarch -# Tests require these but don't work without internet +# Tests require these but dont' work without internet #BuildRequires: libusbx-devel systemd-devel
Requires -------- python2-btchip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hidapi python(abi) python2-hidapi
Provides -------- python2-btchip: python-btchip python2-btchip
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/LedgerHQ/btchip-python/archive/v0.1.18.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a09008e008f4fdf5d9e9e1a533c06742e6f50bf60b8ab03195600ddf6381fd9b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a09008e008f4fdf5d9e9e1a533c06742e6f50bf60b8ab03195600ddf6381fd9b
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n python-btchip Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
--- Comment #7 from Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org --- Must: * Please contact upstream to clarify licensing. Best if they put proper license header and release new version.
Non critical: * Consider removing the python3 code that is commented out.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
--- Comment #8 from Mike Goodwin mike@mgoodwin.net --- Thanks Jonny! I've linked them to this review and have asked them to comment to me or the ticket in reply to the questionably-licensed files.
Re: the python3 stuff in the spec, i was unsure about if you wanted that there because of what you said about following the new guidelines and potential python3 support in the future for one of your packaged libs. I spoke to btchip and he said they intend on supporting python3 with this library at some point.
Still remove?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
--- Comment #9 from Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org --- (In reply to Mike Goodwin from comment #8)
Thanks Jonny! I've linked them to this review and have asked them to comment to me or the ticket in reply to the questionably-licensed files.
Great!
Re: the python3 stuff in the spec, i was unsure about if you wanted that there because of what you said about following the new guidelines and potential python3 support in the future for one of your packaged libs. I spoke to btchip and he said they intend on supporting python3 with this library at some point.
Still remove?
You decide, I would remove them now and add it later when btchip supports python3.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org --- Approved!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
Mike Goodwin mike@mgoodwin.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python2-btchip - |python-btchip - |'btchip-python' is a |'btchip-python' is a |library used to interface |library used to interface |with Ledger hardware |with Ledger hardware |devices (Cryptocurrency) |devices (Cryptocurrency)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-btchip
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
Mike Goodwin mike@mgoodwin.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2017-01-04 20:05:45
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-btchip-0.1.18-3.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b6b43c34c6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-btchip-0.1.18-3.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-6fd7ecc578
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |--- Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-btchip-0.1.18-3.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-2017-6fd7ecc578
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-btchip-0.1.18-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2017-b6b43c34c6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2017-01-04 20:05:45 |2017-01-13 02:21:04
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-btchip-0.1.18-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-btchip-0.1.18-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla