[Bug 2143807] New: Review Request: python-dirhash - Python module and CLI for hashing of file system directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143807
Bug ID: 2143807 Summary: Review Request: python-dirhash - Python module and CLI for hashing of file system directories Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: logans@cottsay.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-dirhash/python-dirhash.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-dirhash/python-dirhash-0.2.1-1.fc38....
Description: A lightweight python module and CLI for computing the hash of any directory based on its files' structure and content.
- Supports all hashing algorithms of Python's built-in hashlib module. - Glob/wildcard (".gitignore style") path matching for expressive filtering of files to include/exclude. - Multiprocessing for up to 6x speed-up
The hash is computed according to the Dirhash Standard, which is designed to allow for consistent and collision resistant generation/verification of directory hashes across implementations.
Fedora Account System Username: cottsay Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94278777 Target branches: rawhide f37 f36 epel9
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143807
Jasmin jasmin.marwad@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jasmin.marwad@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Jasmin jasmin.marwad@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jasmin/2143807-python-dirhash/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: 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: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %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: 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) ---------------------------- ============================ 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
python3-dirhash.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dirhash 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/andhus/dirhash-python/archive/v0.2.1/dirhash-python-0.2.1... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 741af7c90f5733907f51696be367195e788639b6483826610b6159b2cc5fc041 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 741af7c90f5733907f51696be367195e788639b6483826610b6159b2cc5fc041
Requires -------- python3-dirhash (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.11dist(scantree)
Provides -------- python3-dirhash: python-dirhash python3-dirhash python3.11-dirhash python3.11dist(dirhash) python3dist(dirhash)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2143807 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Perl, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143807
Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1225692
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225692 [Bug 1225692] Tracker for Fedora Robotics SIG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143807
Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |orion@nwra.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |orion@nwra.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/orion/2143807-python-dirhash/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. [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]: 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 6065 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [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-dirhash-0.2.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-dirhash-0.2.1-1.fc40.src.rpm ========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp2y8iaw59')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python-dirhash.src: E: spelling-error ('hashlib', '%description -l en_US hashlib -> hash lib, hash-lib, hashish') python-dirhash.src: E: spelling-error ('gitignore', '%description -l en_US gitignore -> git ignore, git-ignore, ignore') python3-dirhash.noarch: E: spelling-error ('hashlib', '%description -l en_US hashlib -> hash lib, hash-lib, hashish') python3-dirhash.noarch: E: spelling-error ('gitignore', '%description -l en_US gitignore -> git ignore, git-ignore, ignore') python3-dirhash.noarch: W: python-missing-require scantree python3-dirhash.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dirhash ===================================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 1.2 s =====================================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 1
python3-dirhash.noarch: E: spelling-error ('hashlib', '%description -l en_US hashlib -> hash lib, hash-lib, hashish') python3-dirhash.noarch: E: spelling-error ('gitignore', '%description -l en_US gitignore -> git ignore, git-ignore, ignore') python3-dirhash.noarch: W: python-missing-require scantree python3-dirhash.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dirhash 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 3 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/andhus/dirhash-python/archive/v0.2.1/dirhash-python-0.2.1... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 741af7c90f5733907f51696be367195e788639b6483826610b6159b2cc5fc041 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 741af7c90f5733907f51696be367195e788639b6483826610b6159b2cc5fc041
Requires -------- python3-dirhash (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.12dist(scantree)
Provides -------- python3-dirhash: python-dirhash python3-dirhash python3.12-dirhash python3.12dist(dirhash) python3dist(dirhash)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2143807 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, R, Ocaml, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143807
--- Comment #3 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-dirhash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143807
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-7bb5c6b028 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-7bb5c6b028
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143807
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-12-13 17:14:02
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-7bb5c6b028 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143807
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1a170351a0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1a170351a0
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-8c180be455 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-8c180be455
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143807
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1a170351a0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1a170351a0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143807
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-ef0784c3d6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-ef0784c3d6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143807
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-ef0784c3d6 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-ef0784c3d6 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-ef0784c3d6
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=2143807
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1a170351a0 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1a170351a0
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=2143807
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-8c180be455 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-8c180be455 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-8c180be455
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=2143807
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-ef0784c3d6 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143807
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1a170351a0 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143807
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-8c180be455 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com