Bug 1370919 (python-pycryptodome)
Summary: | Review Request: python-pycryptodome - Self-contained Python package of low-level cryptographic primitives | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Neal Gompa <ngompa13> |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | jos, lemenkov, ngompa13, package-review, pviktori, quantum.analyst, tcallawa, terje.rosten, tucklesepk |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | ngompa13:
fedora-review?
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2018-03-18 04:16:14 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1433707 |
Description
Igor Gnatenko
2016-08-28 10:53:09 UTC
Blocking legal tracker as I'm not completely sure that we can have OCB (but looks like we have OCB in libtomcrypt, mosh. Though we strip it out from OpenSSL. So it's better to be sure. My thoughts written in spec file: # Only OCB blockcipher mode is patented, but according to # http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license1.pdf # BSD 2-claus ("Simplified") has been approved in 2009 so # it means license for OSS Implementations applies here. Related thread at mailing list: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/PPJTMAQITOAHHTAYXEWWMX6NHPLUZDFL/#PPJTMAQITOAHHTAYXEWWMX6NHPLUZDFL You can have OCB. Lifting FE-Legal. Taking this review. Could you please update the package to the latest version? Since you're doing patching and other things to it, I'd like to see this bumped to 3.4.3 first. Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pycryptodome.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pycryptodome-3.4.3-1.fc26.src.rpm There were a few concerning issues spotted: python2-pycryptodomex.x86_64: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Cryptodome/SelfTest/PublicKey/test_vectors/ECC/ecc_p256_x509.pem python2-pycryptodomex.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Cryptodome/SelfTest/PublicKey/test_vectors/ECC/gen_ecc_p256.sh 644 /bin/sh python2-pycryptodomex.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Cryptodome/SelfTest/__main__.py /usr/bin/env python python2-pycryptodomex.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Cryptodome/SelfTest/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-pycryptodomex.x86_64: E: backup-file-in-package /usr/share/licenses/python2-pycryptodomex/LEGAL/copy/LICENSE.orig python3-pycryptodomex.x86_64: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/Cryptodome/SelfTest/PublicKey/test_vectors/ECC/ecc_p256_x509.pem python3-pycryptodomex.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/Cryptodome/SelfTest/PublicKey/test_vectors/ECC/gen_ecc_p256.sh 644 /bin/sh python3-pycryptodomex.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/Cryptodome/SelfTest/__main__.py /usr/bin/env python python3-pycryptodomex.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/Cryptodome/SelfTest/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-pycryptodomex.x86_64: E: backup-file-in-package /usr/share/licenses/python3-pycryptodomex/LEGAL/copy/LICENSE.orig Also, do you really need to add an "x" to the name of the package in the metadata? We don't have a pycryptodome module, and the package is already in the filesystem as pycryptodome, which is different from pycrypto. (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6) > There were a few concerning issues spotted: > > python2-pycryptodomex.x86_64: W: pem-certificate > /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Cryptodome/SelfTest/PublicKey/ > test_vectors/ECC/ecc_p256_x509.pem don't think that it's problem > python2-pycryptodomex.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Cryptodome/SelfTest/PublicKey/ > test_vectors/ECC/gen_ecc_p256.sh 644 /bin/sh easy to fix > python2-pycryptodomex.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter > /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Cryptodome/SelfTest/__main__.py > /usr/bin/env python easy to fix > python2-pycryptodomex.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Cryptodome/SelfTest/__main__.py 644 > /usr/bin/env python easy to fix > python2-pycryptodomex.x86_64: E: backup-file-in-package > /usr/share/licenses/python2-pycryptodomex/LEGAL/copy/LICENSE.orig not a bug > > Also, do you really need to add an "x" to the name of the package in the > metadata? We don't have a pycryptodome module, and the package is already in > the filesystem as pycryptodome, which is different from pycrypto. Well, not sure. I just named it same as egg name... You have this logic in your spec: >%global nsname %{srcname}x ># For now we don't want to replace PyCrypto as it requires patching of ># libraries/applications (in some cases). >%global eggname %{nsname} ... ># Use separate namespace >touch .separate_namespace Which looks like it triggers the usage of the "cryptodomex" name. It looks like when you don't have that, it uses "Crypto" namespace? I guess it's fine, since the other option supported by upstream is to use "Crypto" namespace, which we don't want right now. Hi! pycryptodome is needed by mycli 1.9.0[1][2], anything I can do to help to move this forward? [1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433707 [2]: https://github.com/dbcli/mycli/blob/master/setup.py#L21 Igor, Are you still interested in getting this in? I hadn't seen any updated spec and SRPM with requested fixes. Seems to have been done by someone else. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1552033 *** The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 1000 days |