[Bug 1962299] New: Review Request: python-sshpubkeys - OpenSSH public key parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962299

Bug ID: 1962299
           Summary: Review Request: python-sshpubkeys - OpenSSH public key
                    parser for Python
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Hardware: All
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-sshpubkeys.spec
SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-sshpubkeys-3.3.1-1.fc35.src.rpm
Description:

Native implementation for validating OpenSSH public keys.

Currently ssh-rsa, ssh-dss (DSA), ssh-ed25519 and ecdsa keys with NIST curves
are supported.

Fedora Account System Username: music

-----

Koji builds:

F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=68271301
F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=68271353
F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=68271878

-----

rpmlint messages:
> python3-sshpubkeys.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsa -> rs, Ursa, rs a
> python3-sshpubkeys.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dss -> dz, dds, doss
> python3-sshpubkeys.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ecdsa -> ecstasy
> python-sshpubkeys.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsa -> rs, Ursa, rs a
> python-sshpubkeys.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dss -> dz, dds, doss
> python-sshpubkeys.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ecdsa -> ecstasy

These are all false positives from the spell checker.

-----

This package is a trivial pyproject-rpm-macros package, suitable for a new
reviewer.

[Bug 1962299] Review Request: python-sshpubkeys - OpenSSH public key parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962299

Ben Beasley  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Doc Type|---                         |If docs needed, set a value
         Whiteboard|                            |Trivial

[Bug 1962299] Review Request: python-sshpubkeys - OpenSSH public key parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962299

Robert-André Mauchin 🐧  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |POST
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧  ---
Package approved.

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.
[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 "New" or "Revised"
     License". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-sshpubkeys/review-
     python-sshpubkeys/licensecheck.txt
[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: 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 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 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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:
[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: python3-sshpubkeys-3.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
          python-sshpubkeys-3.3.1-1.fc35.src.rpm
python3-sshpubkeys.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsa -> rs,
Ursa, rs a
python3-sshpubkeys.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dss -> dz,
dds, doss
python3-sshpubkeys.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ecdsa ->
ecstasy
python-sshpubkeys.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsa -> rs, Ursa,
rs a
python-sshpubkeys.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dss -> dz, dds,
doss
python-sshpubkeys.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ecdsa -> ecstasy
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

[Bug 1962299] Review Request: python-sshpubkeys - OpenSSH public key parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962299

--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sshpubkeys

[Bug 1962299] Review Request: python-sshpubkeys - OpenSSH public key parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962299

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|POST                        |MODIFIED

--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-522fe8eb0f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-522fe8eb0f

[Bug 1962299] Review Request: python-sshpubkeys - OpenSSH public key parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962299

--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-59a4229b50 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-59a4229b50

[Bug 1962299] Review Request: python-sshpubkeys - OpenSSH public key parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962299

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|MODIFIED                    |ON_QA

--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-59a4229b50 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2021-59a4229b50 *`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-59a4229b50

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.

[Bug 1962299] Review Request: python-sshpubkeys - OpenSSH public key parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962299

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-522fe8eb0f has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2021-522fe8eb0f *`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-522fe8eb0f

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.

[Bug 1962299] Review Request: python-sshpubkeys - OpenSSH public key parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962299

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ON_QA                       |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |ERRATA
        Last Closed|                            |2021-06-02 00:49:46

--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-59a4229b50 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

[Bug 1962299] Review Request: python-sshpubkeys - OpenSSH public key parser for Python

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962299

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-522fe8eb0f has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.