Bug 1147149

This package built on koji:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7708600

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 is not installed
[-]: 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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/flo/review/1147149-python-cryptography-
     vectors/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
   ---> Your %changelog-entry should look like:
        * Sat Sep 27 2014 YOUR NAME <NAME> - 0.5.4-1
[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
[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
   ---> %doc is missing
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
   ---> There are some issues. Please see above and below
[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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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:
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
   ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7721271
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached
     diff).
   ---> see Diff below
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-1.fc22.src.rpm
python-cryptography-vectors.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-cryptography-vectors
python-cryptography-vectors.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/flo/review/1147149-python-cryptography-vectors/srpm/python-cryptography-vectors.spec	2014-09-29 18:42:50.249968225 +0200
+++ /home/flo/review/1147149-python-cryptography-vectors/srpm-unpacked/python-cryptography-vectors.spec	2014-09-27 18:27:51.000000000 +0200
@@ -24,5 +24,7 @@
 Test vectors for the cryptography package.
 
-
+The only purpose of this package is to be a building requirement for
+python-cryptography, otherwise it has no use. Don’t install it unless
+you really know what you are doing.
 
 %prep


Requires
--------
python-cryptography-vectors (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python-cryptography-vectors:
    python-cryptography-vectors



Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/cryptography-vectors/cryptography_vectors-0.5.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3537837ef31814fb25c082274a64042bf2c52b6108b99374d1eee505097ccf36
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3537837ef31814fb25c082274a64042bf2c52b6108b99374d1eee505097ccf36


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1147149
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

(In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #2)
> 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 is not installed

You put it to the wrong item. If you read the correct point below, you would see "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 %doc." Pray, tell me, where is the LICENSE file hidden in the original tarball?

    matej@wycliff: cryptography_vectors-0.5.4 (master %)$ find . -name L\*
    matej@wycliff: cryptography_vectors-0.5.4 (master %)$

> [!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
>    ---> Your %changelog-entry should look like:
>         * Sat Sep 27 2014 YOUR NAME <NAME> - 0.5.4-1

Fixed 

http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-2.el7.src.rpm
http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-cryptography-vectors.spec

> [!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
>    ---> %doc is missing

Lovely. And what should I put to that %doc section?

> Generic:
> [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
>      Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached
>      diff).
>    ---> see Diff below
>      See: (this test has no URL)

Fixed.

Hi Matěj!

What about this file https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/blob/master/LICENSE ?
And yes, you are right was not in the tarball.

BTW there is a new version 0.6.

Cheers,
 Flo

(In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #4)
> BTW there is a new version 0.6.

I know about it, but I will rather get this version to Fedora, and then I can simply push new upgrade.

Hi Matěj!

From https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

"Common licenses that require including their texts with all derivative works include ASL 2.0, EPL, BSD and MIT."

Cheers,
 Flo

(In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #6)
> Hi Matěj!
> 
> From
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
> 
> "Common licenses that require including their texts with all derivative
> works include ASL 2.0, EPL, BSD and MIT."

https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/1377

http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-cryptography-vectors.spec
http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.el7.src.rpm

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:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 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 %doc.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
   ---> https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/1377
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
   ---> 0.6 is the latest version
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
   ---> upstream tarball does not include an own license text file
[-]: 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.
   ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7741295
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[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.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc22.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-cryptography-vectors
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
python-cryptography-vectors (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python-cryptography-vectors:
    python-cryptography-vectors



Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/cryptography-vectors/cryptography_vectors-0.5.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3537837ef31814fb25c082274a64042bf2c52b6108b99374d1eee505097ccf36
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3537837ef31814fb25c082274a64042bf2c52b6108b99374d1eee505097ccf36


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1147149
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

===== Solution =====
      APPROVED

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-cryptography-vectors
Short Description: Test vectors for the cryptography package
Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/cryptography-vectors/
Owners: mcepl
Branches: f20 f21 el6 epel7
InitialCC:

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-cryptography-vectors
Short Description: Test vectors for the cryptography package
Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/cryptography-vectors/
Owners: mcepl
Branches: f20 f21
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Built in Rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7879712

python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc20

python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc21

python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

Reopen for the upgrade required in bug 1114267 comment 23

python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc21

python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc20

Package python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc21:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc21'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15184/python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc21
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: python-cryptography-vectors
New Branches: el6 epel7
Owners: mcepl npmccallum

Git done (by process-git-requests).

python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.el7

python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.