Spec URL: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-libnacl/python-libnacl.spec SRPM URL: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-libnacl/python-libnacl-1.0.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm Description: This library is used to gain direct access to the functions exposed by Daniel J. Bernstein's nacl library via libsodium or tweetnacl. Fedora Account System Username: terminalmage This will be an optional dependency for salt (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=13129) beginning with the next feature release. I currently maintain one package and co-maintain two others (including salt), so I should not require sponsorship. I am also opening a branch-and-build issue to get libsodium built for EL5, as it is a dependency for this package. I will add the issue ID to the comments once I have done so, and once libsodium has been built for EL5 I will submit a spec and SRPM for EL5. rpmlint -v output for the spec is as follows: python-libnacl.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install python-libnacl.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean python-libnacl.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag python-libnacl.spec: W: no-%build-section python-libnacl.spec: W: no-%clean-section python-libnacl.spec: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/l/libnacl/libnacl-1.0.0.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Branch-and-build ticket for libsodium on EL5 is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113311
I will need branches for: el5, el6, epel7, f20, f19, and rawhide.
The referenced SPEC should build for all but el5.
I just realized that I posted a link to the actual RPM, not the SRPM. Corrected url for the SRPM is: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-libnacl/python-libnacl-1.0.0-1.el6.src.rpm
Just some comments: - At least some BRs (python2-devel and python-setuptools) are missing - Python macros must be versioned More details: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python - el5 needs additional stuff, see your rpmlint output.
New SPEC: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-libnacl/python-libnacl.spec New SRPM: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-libnacl/python-libnacl-1.1.0-1.el6.src.rpm Thanks for the recommendations. rpmlint is clean (no warnings/errors) now, and the SPEC should now work for EL5 as well. There are a few INFO-level lines in the rpmlint output, but they appear to be falsely reporting, as you can see below. [16:37:50] erik@rpmbuild ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS % rpmlint -v python-libnacl-1.1.0-1.el6.src.rpm python-libnacl.src: I: checking python-libnacl.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US python-libnacl.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/saltstack/libnacl (timeout 10 seconds) python-libnacl.src: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/l/libnacl/libnacl-1.1.0.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [16:37:54] erik@rpmbuild ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS % curl --silent https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/l/libnacl/libnacl-1.1.0.tar.gz | file - /dev/stdin: gzip compressed data, was "dist/libnacl-1.1.0.tar", last modified: Wed Jun 25 13:31:50 2014, max compression [16:38:04] erik@rpmbuild ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS % curl --silent -IL https://github.com/saltstack/libnacl | grep Status Status: 200 OK
I just wonder wht it has libnacl instead of libsodium in its name? ;)
Not sure, I didn't write it :) I think it was named libnacl partly because it was written as an alternative to PyNaCl.
The package does not build in rawhide, look https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9648/7199648/build.log
That build failure was an upstream bug, which is fixed in 1.3.2. I've updated the spec, here are the new files: New SPEC: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-libnacl/python-libnacl.spec New SRPM: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-libnacl/python-libnacl-1.3.2-1.el6.src.rpm It builds now on rawhide, as well as EPEL5.
I'm currently on vacation, I will try to do the review as time permits
I have launched this scratch build in rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7291922 I will check it later
Well, it fails. https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1923/7291923/build.log It seems that the __python2 macro is undefined. It maybe related with the redefinitions you do on the first lines of the spec file. It's a little bit difficult to understand how the macros are substituted with all the "%ifs" and "%elses". A suggestion, create a simple spec that builds in rawhide and add the conditionals for epel later. Or put them in the specfiles in their own branches
There aren't any elses in the top of the spec anymore. How are you building this? Maybe you have a cached version of the SPEC file?
Ok, I'm trying again, $ wget http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-libnacl/python-libnacl-1.3.2-1.el6.src.rpm $ koji build --scratch rawhide python-libnacl-1.3.2-1.el6.src.rpm The task is here, http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7301967 It fails, you can have a look here in the build log https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1968/7301968/build.log Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ao2sKG + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd libnacl-1.3.2 + '%{__python2}' setup.py build /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ao2sKG: line 31: fg: no job control RPM build errors: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ao2sKG (%build) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ao2sKG (%build) Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target noarch --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/python-libnacl.spec'] Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line 70, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py", line 378, in do raise mockbuild.exception.Error, ("Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s" % (command,), child.returncode) Error: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target noarch --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/python-libnacl.spec'] LEAVE do --> EXCEPTION RAISED
Of course, this could be because rawhide is broken, I have launched a scratch build in f21 just in case: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7302051 But I think that the cause are the redefitions of python2 macros you do in the spec. I'm not sure if this is allowed by the guidelines, but I do not recommend it. It makes the spec more difficult to understand. Remember that you can have a different spec for each branch.
I see what the problem is. It looks like the SRPM that I uploaded was an earlier version, when I was still dealing with the same build failures you found initially. The one that I was building on my laptop (as well as some scratch builds I just ran) was working just fine, so I checked the sha256 checksum and realized that they were different. I've updated the SRPM at the URL referenced in my earlier message. Sorry for the confusion.
This link is broken http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-libnacl/python-libnacl-1.3.2-1.el6.src.rpm
Sorry, it is now fixed.
I'm sorry, but it is still broken for me. I'm doing $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 python-libnacl-1.3.2-1.el6.src.rpm And the build log says: Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.fFTP2g + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + rm -rf libnacl-1.3.2 + /usr/bin/gzip -dc /builddir/build/SOURCES/libnacl-1.3.2.tar.gz + /usr/bin/tar -xf - + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd libnacl-1.3.2 + /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILD/python3-python-libnacl-1.3.2-1.fc22 + cp -a . /builddir/build/BUILD/python3-python-libnacl-1.3.2-1.fc22 + exit 0 Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.EkCgN0 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD RPM build errors: + cd libnacl-1.3.2 + '%{__python2}' setup.py build /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.EkCgN0: line 31: fg: no job control error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.EkCgN0 (%build) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.EkCgN0 (%build) Could you check that the same command works for you?
OK, I must have put the wrong file up there, because when I dowloaded the one from that link I can reproduce the failure. However, right now, with a proper SRPM, the current python-libnacl release still will not build due to a soname bump in the newest version of libsodium (which was added to Rawhide this past week). I've contacted the libnacl developer and a new libnacl will be released this weekend. I'll make a new SRPM and update this issue at that time.
OK, the upstream issues I referenced in my earlier email have been resolved. The SRPM linked below successfully built for me on rawhide and EL6. SRPM: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-libnacl/python-libnacl-1.3.5-1.el6.src.rpm SPEC: http://terminalmage.net/redhat/python-libnacl/python-libnacl.spec
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. [!]: 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. [-]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [-]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [-]: 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. [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]: 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: [-]: Buildroot is not present [-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [!]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-libnacl-1.3.5-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-libnacl-1.3.5-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-libnacl-1.3.5-1.fc22.src.rpm python-libnacl.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libsodium python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tweetnacl -> tweeter python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ctypes -> types, c types python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bernstein's -> Bern stein's, Bern-stein's, Bernstein python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nacl -> nail, natl, manacle python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweetnacl -> tweeter python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y python-libnacl.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-libnacl.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libsodium python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tweetnacl -> tweeter python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ctypes -> types, c types python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bernstein's -> Bern stein's, Bern-stein's, Bernstein python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nacl -> nail, natl, manacle python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweetnacl -> tweeter python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y python3-libnacl.noarch: W: no-documentation python-libnacl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tweetnacl -> tweeter python-libnacl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ctypes -> types, c types python-libnacl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bernstein's -> Bern stein's, Bern-stein's, Bernstein python-libnacl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nacl -> nail, natl, manacle python-libnacl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweetnacl -> tweeter python-libnacl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit python-libnacl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 23 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-libnacl python3-libnacl python-libnacl.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libsodium python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tweetnacl -> tweeter python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ctypes -> types, c types python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bernstein's -> Bern stein's, Bern-stein's, Bernstein python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nacl -> nail, natl, manacle python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweetnacl -> tweeter python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y python-libnacl.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-libnacl.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libsodium python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tweetnacl -> tweeter python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ctypes -> types, c types python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bernstein's -> Bern stein's, Bern-stein's, Bernstein python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nacl -> nail, natl, manacle python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweetnacl -> tweeter python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y python3-libnacl.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 16 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-libnacl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsodium python(abi) python3-libnacl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsodium python(abi) Provides -------- python-libnacl: python-libnacl python3-libnacl: python3-libnacl ============== Comments: * Buildroot, clean, defattr, etc are only needed in EPEL. As you are using the same spec for Rawhide and EL6, I think we are safe ignoring the fedora-review complains. * We can ignore the rpmlint complain about "explicit-lib-dependency", as the program uses ctypes, the library name has to be explicit. * In the tarball there is 'tests' subdirectory. If would be nice to run the tests in %check (but it is not mandatory) * The remaining problem is about missing LICENSE. The license file *must* be included in %doc if present. Could you add a %doc section (for both python2 and python3 packages) and include LICENSE there? I would include README.rst and AUTHORS also.
Any progress with this? You only need to add the license file to finish...
I wear a lot of hats at work, so I've been a little sidetracked. I will try to get to this and the ioflo review today or later this week. Thanks for checking in.
Sorry for the extended delay on this. Updated SPEC and SRPM with license file added. See below links: SRPM: https://terminalmage.fedorapeople.org/pkg_review/python-libnacl-1.4.2-1.fc22.src.rpm SPEC: https://terminalmage.fedorapeople.org/pkg_review/python-libnacl.spec
jgrulich's scratch build of kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 for f22-candidate and git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11212117
Sergio, anything missing ? This is blocking new version of salt, afaik.
Sorry I missed this update. Since may there have been a few changes in Python packaging guidelines, for example, you need a Provides: python2-libnacl for Fedora 22+ in the Python2 subpackage Could you review the guidelines and check if you need more changes? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
2.4.4 is released also notice that upstream have one python-libnacl.spec https://github.com/saltstack/libnacl/blob/master/pkg/rpm/python-libnacl.spec and we just need change ? Name: python-%{srcname} to Name: python2-%{srcname}
(In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #30) > and we just need change ? > Name: python-%{srcname} > to > Name: python2-%{srcname} I like the suggestion in the guidelines of one empty toplevel package (python-%{srcname}) and a python2-%{srcname} subpackage. The top level has a Provides pointing to the package corresponding to the default interpreter in the release (python2 vs python3)
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews a response is needed in one week or the review will be closed
This is no longer a priority to get packaged, I will close it.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1399833 ***