Bug 2372327

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9153604
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2372327-python-twomemo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09153604-python-twomemo/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

fedora-review/mock is causing the following error:

Problem 1: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.13 needed by python3-doubleratchet-1.1.0-3.fc43.noarch from fedora
  - nothing provides python3.13dist(typing-extensions) >= 4.3 needed by python3-doubleratchet-1.1.0-3.fc43.noarch from fedora
  - nothing provides python3.13dist(cryptography) >= 3.3.2 needed by python3-doubleratchet-1.1.0-3.fc43.noarch from fedora
 Problem 2: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.13 needed by python3-omemo-1.0.4-2.fc42.noarch from fedora
  - nothing provides python3.13dist(typing-extensions) >= 4.3 needed by python3-omemo-1.0.4-2.fc42.noarch from fedora
  - nothing provides (python3.13dist(xeddsa) < 2~~ with python3.13dist(xeddsa) >= 1) needed by python3-omemo-1.0.4-2.fc42.noarch from fedora
 Problem 3: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides python3.14dist(pydantic) >= 1.7.4 needed by python3-x3dh-1.0.4-3.fc43.noarch from fedora

Is there a Python-related rebuild going on in Rawhide?

Running "rpmbuild -ba python-twomemo.spec" directly on Fedora 42 causes this:

+ /usr/bin/python3 -sP /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/import_all_modules.py -f /home/mike/Source/rpms/BUILD/python-twomemo-1.1.0-build/python-twomemo-1.1.0-1.fc42.noarch-pyproject-modules
Check import: twomemo
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/xeddsa/bindings.py", line 8, in <module>
    from _libxeddsa import ffi, lib
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named '_libxeddsa'

During handling of the above exception, another exception occurred:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/import_all_modules.py", line 171, in <module>
    main()
    ~~~~^^
  File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/import_all_modules.py", line 167, in main
    import_modules(modules)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^
  File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/import_all_modules.py", line 100, in import_modules
    importlib.import_module(module)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.13/importlib/__init__.py", line 88, in import_module
    return _bootstrap._gcd_import(name[level:], package, level)
           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 1387, in _gcd_import
  File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 1360, in _find_and_load
  File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 1331, in _find_and_load_unlocked
  File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 935, in _load_unlocked
  File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap_external>", line 1026, in exec_module
  File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 488, in _call_with_frames_removed
  File "/home/mike/Source/rpms/BUILD/python-twomemo-1.1.0-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/twomemo/__init__.py", line 4, in <module>
    from .twomemo import Twomemo as Twomemo
  File "/home/mike/Source/rpms/BUILD/python-twomemo-1.1.0-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/twomemo/twomemo.py", line 19, in <module>
    import x3dh
  File "/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/x3dh/__init__.py", line 4, in <module>
    from .base_state import KeyAgreementException, BaseState
  File "/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/x3dh/base_state.py", line 10, in <module>
    import xeddsa
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/xeddsa/__init__.py", line 4, in <module>
    from .bindings import (
    ...<25 lines>...
    )
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/xeddsa/bindings.py", line 10, in <module>
    from .libxeddsa_emscripten import ffi, lib  # type: ignore[assignment]
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/xeddsa/libxeddsa_emscripten.py", line 3, in <module>
    from browser import window  # type: ignore[import-not-found]
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'browser'
error: Bad exit status from /tmp/rpm-tmp.KSdeU5 (%check)

Some of the python packages have not been rebuilt for python 3.14, probably another week or so before they get rebuilt.

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", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/mike/2372327-python-twomemo/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.14
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
     /usr/share/help/en(novelwriter-doc, profanity-doc, thorvg-doc, python-
     slixmpp-doc, python3-tablib, python3-xeddsa, python3-androguard,
     python3-colorspacious, python3-doubleratchet, libstrophe-doc)
[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]: 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 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 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 2097 bytes in 1 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]: 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:
[-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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-twomemo , python3-twomemo+xml
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: 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-twomemo-1.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          python3-twomemo+xml-1.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          python-twomemo-1.1.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmp49l6x6da')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

python-twomemo.src: E: spelling-error ('xmpp', 'Summary(en_US) xmpp -> exempt')
python-twomemo.src: E: spelling-error ('xmpp', '%description -l en_US xmpp -> exempt')
python3-twomemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xmpp', 'Summary(en_US) xmpp -> exempt')
python3-twomemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xmpp', '%description -l en_US xmpp -> exempt')
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 38 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 1.0 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 2

python3-twomemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xmpp', 'Summary(en_US) xmpp -> exempt')
python3-twomemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xmpp', '%description -l en_US xmpp -> exempt')
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 31 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Syndace/python-twomemo/archive/v1.1.0/python-twomemo-1.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 812706250843a8ed3d7936dff850abdd36497ed20a41914b8ad6343faeb213c2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 812706250843a8ed3d7936dff850abdd36497ed20a41914b8ad6343faeb213c2


Requires
--------
python3-twomemo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.14dist(doubleratchet) < 2~~ with python3.14dist(doubleratchet) >= 1)
    (python3.14dist(omemo) < 2~~ with python3.14dist(omemo) >= 1)
    (python3.14dist(x3dh) < 2~~ with python3.14dist(x3dh) >= 1)
    (python3.14dist(xeddsa) < 2~~ with python3.14dist(xeddsa) >= 1)
    python(abi)
    python3.14dist(protobuf)
    python3.14dist(typing-extensions)

python3-twomemo+xml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-twomemo
    python3.14dist(xmlschema)



Provides
--------
python3-twomemo:
    python-twomemo
    python3-twomemo
    python3.14-twomemo
    python3.14dist(twomemo)
    python3dist(twomemo)

python3-twomemo+xml:
    python-twomemo+xml
    python3-twomemo+xml
    python3.14-twomemo+xml
    python3.14dist(twomemo[xml])
    python3dist(twomemo[xml])



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2372327
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, R, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:

(a) Main package owns /usr/share/help/en, which does not seem right.
(b) No comment describing patch. Patch itself is short and self-evident, though. Perhaps say something like "Patched to match Fedora version, which seems to work. Not worth upstreaming."

spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-twomemo.spec
srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-twomemo-1.1.0-1.fc42.src.rpm

> (a) Main package owns /usr/share/help/en, which does not seem right.
Put this in a docs package.  Nothing seems to own this directory that is a dependency.

> (b) No comment describing patch. Patch itself is short and self-evident, though. Perhaps say something like "Patched to match Fedora version, which seems to work. Not worth upstreaming."

Added a comment.

Approved.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-twomemo

This can be closed, right?