Bug 1482577

I am strongly against having a python3 pyca package that is a different version than the python2 pyca package that ships in RHEL. This will result in extra work for the RHEL developers and will also cause subtle compatibility issues on code written to work on either python2 or python3.

NACK from me.

Yeah I agree it should be the same version as in RHEL, but that's what I tried to do:

# repoquery --location python2-cryptography
http://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/repo/rhel/rhel7/x86_64/rhel-7-server-rpms/Packages/python2-cryptography-1.7.2-1.el7.x86_64.rpm

Nathaniel, what version do you have in RHEL?

I was thrown off by "This package is identical to the python-cryptography that is already in Fedora." However, this statement isn't true because Fedora has python-cryptography-2.0.2-1.fc27. So long as you're using the same bits (modified to build against python3) from RHEL, I'm cool.

Hello,

I guess this is a package for EPEL too?

Anyway, the license files should not be in doc but in %license:

%doc LICENSE LICENSE.APACHE LICENSE.BSD README.rst docs

→

%doc README.rst docs
%license LICENSE LICENSE.APACHE LICENSE.BSD

And I've got a whole bunch of dependency missing:

DEBUG util.py:450:  No matching package to install: 'python34-pretend'
DEBUG util.py:450:  No matching package to install: 'python34-iso8601'
DEBUG util.py:450:  No matching package to install: 'python34-cryptography-vectors = 1.7.2'
DEBUG util.py:450:  No matching package to install: 'python34-pyasn1-modules >= 0.1.8'
DEBUG util.py:450:  No matching package to install: 'python34-pyasn1 >= 0.1.8'


Since it's for EPEL, I suggest you move to the right product and add the relevant missing packages.

I'm actually not so sure I need to use the "Fedora EPEL" product in Bugzilla. I'll ask the folks here at Flock.

I've sent pull requests to enable Python3 builds in EPEL for the missing dependencies:
- https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-iso8601/pull-request/3
- https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pretend/pull-request/1

So this package depends on those changes too.

I fixed the license tags, and now all the dependencies are either in EPEL already or ready to be built with this package.

Only python3-cryptography-vectors is not yet in EPEL because it would not make sens without this one, but it has been accepted and when this one gets it I'll make an update with both of them (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3-cryptography-vectors)

Spec URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python3-cryptography/python3-cryptography.spec
SRPM URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python3-cryptography/python3-cryptography-1.7.2-2.el7.centos.src.rpm

All ok, package accepted.


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

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


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0) BSD (unspecified)", "*No
     copyright* Apache (v2.0) BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or generated",
     "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 84 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/python3-cryptography/review-
     python3-cryptography/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: 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 542720 bytes in 74 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 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]: 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.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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.
[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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-cryptography-debuginfo-1.7.2-2.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
          python3-cryptography-1.7.2-2.el7.centos.src.rpm
python3-cryptography.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3-cryptography

python3-cryptography-1.7.2-2.el7 python3-cryptography-vectors-1.7.2-3.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-5cdc22eda7

python3-cryptography-1.7.2-2.el7, python3-cryptography-vectors-1.7.2-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-5cdc22eda7

python3-cryptography-1.7.2-2.el7, python3-cryptography-vectors-1.7.2-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Upstream has issued an update for python-cryptography (python2-cryptography-1.7.2-1.el7_4.1), which should probably be reflected in this package.

Whilst doing that update, please add the runtime dependencies necessary. By way of comparison:

$ rpm -qp --requires python2-cryptography-1.7.2-1.el7_4.1.x86_64.rpm
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10()(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1_EC)(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.2)(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit)
libssl.so.10()(64bit)
libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit)
openssl
python(abi) = 2.7
python-cffi >= 1.4.1
python-enum34
python-idna >= 2.0
python-ipaddress
python-pyasn1 >= 0.1.8
python-six >= 1.4.1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1

$ rpm -qp --requires python34-cryptography-1.7.2-2.el7.x86_64.rpm
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10()(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1_EC)(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.2)(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libpython3.4m.so.1.0()(64bit)
libssl.so.10()(64bit)
libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit)
openssl
python(abi) = 3.4
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1

The package is missing runtime dependencies on:
python%{python3_pkgversion}-cffi >= 1.4.1
python%{python3_pkgversion}-idna >= 2.0
python%{python3_pkgversion}-pyasn1 >= 0.1.8
python%{python3_pkgversion}-six >= 1.4.1

This causes problems for downstream users of python34-cryptography, such as when running python-paramiko's test suite:

$ /usr/bin/python3.4 ./test.py --no-sftp --no-big-file
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "./test.py", line 30, in <module>
    import paramiko
  File "/builddir/build/BUILD/paramiko-2.1.1/paramiko/__init__.py", line 30, in <module>
    from paramiko.transport import SecurityOptions, Transport
  File "/builddir/build/BUILD/paramiko-2.1.1/paramiko/transport.py", line 33, in <module>
    from cryptography.hazmat.backends import default_backend
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/cryptography/hazmat/backends/__init__.py", line 9, in <module>
    from cryptography.hazmat.backends.multibackend import MultiBackend
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/cryptography/hazmat/backends/multibackend.py", line 9, in <module>
    from cryptography.hazmat.backends.interfaces import (
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/cryptography/hazmat/backends/interfaces.py", line 9, in <module>
    import six
ImportError: No module named 'six'