[Bug 1249702] New: Review Request: custodia - A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702

Bug ID: 1249702
           Summary: Review Request: custodia -  A service to manage,
                    retrieve and store secrets.
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Spec URL: https://simo.fedorapeople.org/reviews/custodia.spec
SRPM URL: https://simo.fedorapeople.org/reviews/custodia-0.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
Description: A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.
Fedora Account System Username: simo

[Bug 1249702] Review Request: custodia - A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702

Simo Sorce  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]

[Bug 1249702] Review Request: custodia - A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
-> %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}
   just %setup -q or %autosetup
-> %if 0%{?fedora}
-> %global with_python3 0
-> %endif
   You're not using this, just drop these lines.

[Bug 1249702] Review Request: custodia - A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702

--- Comment #2 from Simo Sorce  ---
Thanks Igor,
I actually had a chat with Patrick and decided to split the package in a main
package that contains the binary and a secondary subpackage that contains the
modules. This secondary package is also built for python3 so that at least
'client' code can be transitioned to python3 easily.

[Bug 1249702] Review Request: custodia - A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702

--- Comment #3 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
First remark upon trying to review: you are using a %{module_name} macro that
you have not defined.
Just using %{name} works.

[Bug 1249702] Review Request: custodia - A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702

--- Comment #4 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
You are missing build requires on pytest (and probably python-coverage), since
without at least pytest the check part fails.

Also, it fails to build in koji scratch because it does not want to apply the
patch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10802848

[Bug 1249702] Review Request: custodia - A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702

--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring  ---
jgrulich's scratch build of kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062
for f22-candidate and
git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11212117

[Bug 1249702] Review Request: custodia - A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702

--- Comment #6 from Simo Sorce  ---
I updated the spec and srpm files in place.
Please recheck

[Bug 1249702] Review Request: custodia - A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702

Patrick Uiterwijk  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #7 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
The python-custodia and python3-custodia packages don't install the license.
Please fix that before pushing.

Package is APPROVED.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

Issues:
=======
- License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed
  custodia package installs license file, but is not required for
python(3)-custodia

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[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.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: 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 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:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: 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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: custodia-0.1.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python-custodia-0.1.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python3-custodia-0.1.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          custodia-0.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
custodia.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A service to manage, retrieve and
store secrets for other processes.
python-custodia.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Subpackage -> Sub
package, Sub-package, Package's
python-custodia.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Subpackage ->
Sub package, Sub-package, Package's
python-custodia.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-custodia.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Subpackage -> Sub
package, Sub-package, Package's
python3-custodia.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Subpackage ->
Sub package, Sub-package, Package's
python3-custodia.noarch: W: no-documentation
custodia.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A service to manage, retrieve and
store secrets for other processes.
custodia.src: W: invalid-url Source1:
https://github.com/simo5/custodia/releases/download/v0.1.0/custodia-0.1.0.ta...
HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
custodia.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://github.com/simo5/custodia/releases/download/v0.1.0/custodia-0.1.0.ta...
HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.

Requires
--------
custodia (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python2
    python-custodia
    python-jwcrypto

python3-custodia (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-jwcrypto

python-custodia (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)

Provides
--------
custodia:
    custodia

python3-custodia:
    python3-custodia

python-custodia:
    python-custodia

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/simo5/custodia/releases/download/v0.1.0/custodia-0.1.0.ta...
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
face7f24d6b42b6ec79cf578028f7d0bbc9f29110e36147d17517360016f8cb0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
1ecc6d5324c5c6911d0c777d117b207e37a6ace5495154af1e72eea122d6da05
https://github.com/simo5/custodia/releases/download/v0.1.0/custodia-0.1.0.ta...
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
ddea3dd174af721896cd90cedf765e9296e2811055434ca5110a0c87a616dfc5
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
ddea3dd174af721896cd90cedf765e9296e2811055434ca5110a0c87a616dfc5
However, diff -r shows no differences

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n custodia --prebuilt
Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

[Bug 1249702] Review Request: custodia - A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702

--- Comment #8 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
Oh, one last thing:

Python(3)-custodia are missing deps on python-jwcrypto

[Bug 1249702] Review Request: custodia - A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
custodia-0.1.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-b1069b9da9

[Bug 1249702] Review Request: custodia - A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |MODIFIED

[Bug 1249702] Review Request: custodia - A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702

Fedora Update System  changed:

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

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
custodia-0.1.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update custodia'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-b1069b9da9

[Bug 1249702] Review Request: custodia - A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
custodia-0.1.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

[Bug 1249702] Review Request: custodia - A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ON_QA                       |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |ERRATA
        Last Closed|                            |2015-11-04 15:55:17