[Bug 2091916] New: Review Request: python-oscrypto - Compiler-free Python crypto library backed by the OS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091916
Bug ID: 2091916 Summary: Review Request: python-oscrypto - Compiler-free Python crypto library backed by the OS Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dominik@greysector.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-oscrypto/python-oscrypto.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-oscrypto/python-oscrypto-1.3.... Description: A compilation-free, always up-to-date encryption library for Python that works on Windows, OS X, Linux and BSD. Supports the following versions of Python: 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10 and pypy.
Fedora Account System Username: rathann
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091916
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jkadlcik@redhat.com CC| |jkadlcik@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Hello Dominik, thank you for the package.
I am trying to build the package but it fails because of a missing dependency on python3-pytest. I tried to add it but then it still doesn't build because of some failed tests. It will need some debugging.
# main package is archful to run tests everywhere but produces noarch packages %global debug_package %{nil}
Every python package that I have seen so far, had
BuildArch: noarch
instead of this. Can you please help me understand what is different in this case and why we want to do it this way?
A compilation-free, always up-to-date encryption library for Python that\ works on Windows, OS X, Linux and BSD. Supports the following versions of\ Python: 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10 and pypy.
While I am happy that the description isn't simply copy-pasted summary, it IMHO isn't very helpful. When installing the package for Fedora XX, it is given that it works on Linux and the python version provided by the repos.
I think it would be more helpful to condense here the Features section from readme.md or to use the description (or its modified version) from setup.py.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091916
--- Comment #2 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- (In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #1)
I am trying to build the package but it fails because of a missing dependency on python3-pytest. I tried to add it but then it still doesn't build because of some failed tests. It will need some debugging.
Fixed.
# main package is archful to run tests everywhere but produces noarch packages %global debug_package %{nil}
Every python package that I have seen so far, had
BuildArch: noarchinstead of this. Can you please help me understand what is different in this case and why we want to do it this way?
In my opinion, other packages should do the same. If the main package is noarch then it gets built on only one (random) arch and the tests run on only one arch instead of all Fedora supported ones.
[...]
I think it would be more helpful to condense here the Features section from readme.md or to use the description (or its modified version) from setup.py.
Fixed.
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-oscrypto/python-oscrypto.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-oscrypto/python-oscrypto-1.3....
* Thu Jun 29 2023 Dominik Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net 1.3.0-2 - use pyproject macros and drop explicit BR: on setuptools - improve description - run only non-network tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091916
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/wbond/os | |crypto
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6125887 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091916
--- Comment #4 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-oscrypto/python-oscrypto.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-oscrypto/python-oscrypto-1.3....
Now with the missing python3-pydist dependency added for %check.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091916
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1973183 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1973183&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6125887 to 6126023
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091916
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6126023 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091916
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 225 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/git/FedoraReview/2091916-python- oscrypto/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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 13963 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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. [?]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-oscrypto-1.3.0-2.fc39.noarch.rpm python-oscrypto-1.3.0-2.fc39.src.rpm ============================================================================================================ rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpls3lmggh')] checks: 31, packages: 2
============================================================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s ============================================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/wbond/oscrypto/archive/1.3.0/oscrypto-1.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6daf845e07e3883926a5ceecd6b4f73d23841abc2769f682da79bf12291fc1af CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6daf845e07e3883926a5ceecd6b4f73d23841abc2769f682da79bf12291fc1af
Requires -------- python3-oscrypto (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(asn1crypto)
Provides -------- python3-oscrypto: python-oscrypto python3-oscrypto python3.11-oscrypto python3.11dist(oscrypto) python3dist(oscrypto)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :try-fedora-review -b 2091916 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, Java, fonts, PHP, C/C++, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, Perl, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091916
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091916
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-oscrypto
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091916
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Fixed In Version| |python-oscrypto-1.3.0-3.fc3 | |9 Last Closed| |2023-07-07 12:03:21
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com