Bug 1906287

scratch build:
rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=57109059
f33: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=57109063

This contains a bundled copy of libxeddsa (https://github.com/Syndace/libxeddsa) which must be handled in accordance with https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling.

From README.md:

> !!! IMPORTANT WARNING !!!
> 
> This code was not written by a cryptographer and is most probably NOT SECURE.

Should we even package this?

(In reply to code from comment #2)
> This contains a bundled copy of libxeddsa
> (https://github.com/Syndace/libxeddsa) which must be handled in accordance
> with https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling.
> 

Indeed. Doing it now.

> From README.md:
> 
> > !!! IMPORTANT WARNING !!!
> > 
> > This code was not written by a cryptographer and is most probably NOT SECURE.
> 
> Should we even package this?

Is there any other (shared)lib which do the job ?

I know these libs are in alpha/beta state, and should be audited. But, I plan to import them in Fedora rawhide (which is the future f35). This way gives a lot of time to upstream.

I did new release. Unbundling has NOT been done yet.

New Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-xeddsa.spec
New SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-xeddsa-0.6.0~beta-2.fc31.src.rpm

New copr build:
f33/rawhide: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fantom/poezio-omemo/build/1965925/

Package approved.


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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
     License Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Expat License". 175 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/python-xeddsa/review-python-
     xeddsa/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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 10240 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: 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 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 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-xeddsa
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-xeddsa-0.6.0~beta-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          python-xeddsa-debugsource-0.6.0~beta-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          python-xeddsa-0.6.0~beta-2.fc35.src.rpm
python-xeddsa.src:60: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3}
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Sorry, you also should generate the docs with Sphinx.

Hi,

I made new release. The doc is empty so I didn't add a doc subpackage.

- Use %%pytest to run tests suite
Done.

Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-xeddsa.spec
SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-xeddsa-0.6.0~beta-3.fc33.src.rpm

copr build:
f33/f34/rawhide: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fantom/poezio-omemo/build/2139740/

Package approved.

Thanks for the review! :)

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-xeddsa