https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
Bug ID: 2086472 Summary: Review Request: python-pysodium - A Python libsodium wrapper Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: asn@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-pysodium/python-pysodium.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-pysodium/python-pysodium-0.7.11-1.src.... Description: This is a very simple wrapper around libsodium masquerading as nacl. Fedora Account System Username: asn
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |cheimes@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |asn@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
--- Comment #1 from Christian Heimes cheimes@redhat.com --- 1) The line "%dir %{python_sitelib}" looks wrong to me. The directory is owned by python3-libs package already.
$ rpm --define "__python /usr/bin/python3" --eval "%{python_sitelib}" /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages $ rpm -qf /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages python3-libs-3.10.4-1.fc35.x86_64
2) Please include "%license LICENSE.txt".
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
--- Comment #2 from Christian Heimes cheimes@redhat.com --- 3) The spec file is missing a runtime requirement on libsodium. Since the package uses ctypes to bind to libsodium, rpm is unable to auto-detect the dependency.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-pysodium/python-pysodium.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-pysodium/python-pysodium-0.7.11-2.src....
* Mon May 16 2022 Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com - 0.7.11-2 - Added missing requirement for libsodium - Added LICENSE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-pysodium/python-pysodium.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-pysodium/python-pysodium-0.7.11-3.src....
* Mon May 16 2022 Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com - 0.7.11-3 - Add missing python_provide - Some spec cleanup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-pysodium/python-pysodium.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-pysodium/python-pysodium-0.7.11-4.src....
* Mon May 16 2022 Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com - 0.7.11-4 - Fixed sitelib packaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhroncok@redhat.com
--- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Some feedback:
1) %python_provide is deprecated, why have you added it? 2) rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info is not needed 3) BuildRequires: python3-rpm-macros is never needed 4) %exclude %{python3_sitelib}/test should be fixed upstream (as well) 5) The specfile defines and uses %{pypi_name}, but the summary and description is repeated literally, which seems rather inconsistent 6) The release tag needs %dist, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/
Also, consider using the modern Python packaging guidelines instead: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-pysodium/python-pysodium.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-pysodium/python-pysodium-0.7.11-5.fc36...
* Mon May 16 2022 Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com - 0.7.11-5 - Added missing %dist tag for release - More spec file cleanup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2086508
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086508 [Bug 2086508] Review Request: python-keepassxc-browser - Access the KeepassXC Browser API from python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-pysodium/python-pysodium.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-pysodium/python-pysodium-0.7.11-6.fc36...
* Mon May 16 2022 Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com - 0.7.11-6 - Added pysodium-fix-test-install.patch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-pysodium/python-pysodium.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-pysodium/python-pysodium-0.7.11-7.fc36...
* Mon May 16 2022 Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com - 0.7.11-7 - Reference and use upstream patch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-pysodium/python-pysodium.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-pysodium/python-pysodium-0.7.12-1.fc36...
* Mon May 16 2022 Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com - 0.7.12-1 - Update to version 0.7.12 - Removed pysodium-fix-test-install.patch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
Christian Heimes cheimes@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Christian Heimes cheimes@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. [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. [-]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pysodium/pysodium-0.7.12.ta... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3e9005c770dca021889b2fe77db7ffa3c2e98fcac7e3cc1e8e157b9ed78f1fc8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3e9005c770dca021889b2fe77db7ffa3c2e98fcac7e3cc1e8e157b9ed78f1fc8
Requires -------- python3-pysodium (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsodium python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-pysodium: python-pysodium python3-pysodium python3.10-pysodium python3.10dist(pysodium) python3dist(pysodium)
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2086472 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, R, fonts, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
--- Comment #12 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- If you run Fedora Review directly from git -- https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/ -- you will get rid of one of the "Cannot parse rpmlint output" messages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
--- Comment #13 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pysodium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cheimes@redhat.com Assignee|cheimes@redhat.com |asn@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a2a32c30ce has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a2a32c30ce
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-06-07 05:14:43
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a2a32c30ce has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-e008fe5ae6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e008fe5ae6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-e008fe5ae6 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-e008fe5ae6 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e008fe5ae6
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086472
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-e008fe5ae6 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org