[Bug 2277759] New: Review Request: python-crypt-r - A copy of the `crypt` module that was removed in Python 3.13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

            Bug ID: 2277759
           Summary: Review Request: python-crypt-r - A copy of the `crypt`
                    module that was removed in Python 3.13
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Hardware: All
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
          Reporter: mhroncok(a)redhat.com
        QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
                CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-crypt-r.spec
SRPM URL:
https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-crypt-r-3.13.1-1.fc39.sr...

Description:
The crypt_r module is a renamed copy of the crypt module as it was present in
Python 3.12 before it was removed.

See PEP 594 for details of the removal.

Unlike crypt, this library always exposes the crypt_r(3) function, not
crypt(3).

This module implements an interface to the crypt_r(3) routine, which is
a one-way hash function based upon a modified DES algorithm; see the Unix man
page for further details. Possible uses include storing hashed passwords so you
can check passwords without storing the actual password, or attempting to crack
Unix passwords with a dictionary.

Fedora Account System Username: churchyard


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2277759] Review Request: python-crypt-r - A copy of the `crypt` module that was removed in Python 3.13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |2276036





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276036
[Bug 2276036] anaconda: DeprecationWarning: 'crypt' is deprecated and slated
for removal in Python 3.13
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

[Bug 2277759] Review Request: python-crypt-r - A copy of the `crypt` module that was removed in Python 3.13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759



--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; ---
Scratchbuild: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117072222
(s390x still waits for a builder, the rest is OK).


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2277759] Review Request: python-crypt-r - A copy of the `crypt` module that was removed in Python 3.13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

Karolina Surma <ksurma(a)redhat.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org    |ksurma(a)redhat.com
                 CC|                            |ksurma(a)redhat.com
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

[Bug 2277759] Review Request: python-crypt-r - A copy of the `crypt` module that was removed in Python 3.13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759



--- Comment #2 from Karolina Surma <ksurma(a)redhat.com&gt; ---
I built the package in both current Rawhide and Python 3.13 mock to compare how
it behaves, all looks good.
Specfile OK.
Provides and requires OK.


Questions from package review:

[?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
This is too cryptic for me and I can't find the proper documentation in
Packaging Guidelines. Any pointers?

[?]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Our .so file is not a development file. Do I want or not want it in ld path?
How do I verify?


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

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



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

C/C++:
[?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[?]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 7337 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[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

===== 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2277759] Review Request: python-crypt-r - A copy of the `crypt` module that was removed in Python 3.13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759



--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; ---
(In reply to Karolina Surma from comment #2)
>  Questions from package review:
>  
>  [?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
>       Note: Sources not installed
>  This is too cryptic for me and I can't find the proper documentation in
>  Packaging Guidelines. Any pointers? 
I have never seen this before, will dig.


>  [?]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
> present.
>       Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
>       attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
>  Our .so file is not a development file. Do I want or not want it in ld path?
>  How do I verify? 
All Python extension modules produce this bogus report from Fedora Review.
/usr/lib64/python*/* is not in ld path. This is not an issue. You can verify
with:

$ ld --verbose | grep SEARCH_DIR
SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/x86_64-redhat-linux/lib64");
SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/lib64");
SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/local/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR("=/lib64");
SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/x86_64-redhat-linux/lib");
SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/local/lib");
SEARCH_DIR("=/lib"); SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/lib");


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2277759] Review Request: python-crypt-r - A copy of the `crypt` module that was removed in Python 3.13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759



--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; ---
[?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed

Implementation in
https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/blob/9889f74a6b500e807f5d2f297700126537e94...

The check results in [?] with "Sources not installed" when it cannot find stuff
in the SRPM.
I don't know why it cannot find stuff in the SRPM, but the thing it tries to
find ("*00gnulib.m4") isn't there, the check should have passed.
There is no bundled gnulib here, all is good.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2277759] Review Request: python-crypt-r - A copy of the `crypt` module that was removed in Python 3.13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

Karolina Surma <ksurma(a)redhat.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |POST
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Karolina Surma <ksurma(a)redhat.com&gt; ---
Thank you for checking that. This makes it all clear. Package APPROVED.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2277759] Review Request: python-crypt-r - A copy of the `crypt` module that was removed in Python 3.13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
<fedora-admin-xmlrpc(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; ---
The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-crypt-r


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2277759] Review Request: python-crypt-r - A copy of the `crypt` module that was removed in Python 3.13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed:

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



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; ---
FEDORA-2024-0bca491aba (python-crypt-r-3.13.1-1.fc41) has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-0bca491aba


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2277759] Review Request: python-crypt-r - A copy of the `crypt` module that was removed in Python 3.13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |ERRATA
             Status|MODIFIED                    |CLOSED
        Last Closed|                            |2024-05-02 21:03:16



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; ---
FEDORA-2024-0bca491aba (python-crypt-r-3.13.1-1.fc41) has been pushed to the
Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...