Spec URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp//python-cryptography-vectors.spec SRPM URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp//python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-1.el7.src.rpm Description: Test vectors for the cryptography package.
This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7708600
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. ---> LICENSE is not installed [-]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/flo/review/1147149-python-cryptography- vectors/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. ---> Your %changelog-entry should look like: * Sat Sep 27 2014 YOUR NAME <NAME> - 0.5.4-1 [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 [!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. ---> %doc is missing [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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> There are some issues. Please see above and below [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]: 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: [-]: 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]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7721271 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). ---> see Diff below See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-1.fc22.src.rpm python-cryptography-vectors.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-cryptography-vectors python-cryptography-vectors.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/flo/review/1147149-python-cryptography-vectors/srpm/python-cryptography-vectors.spec 2014-09-29 18:42:50.249968225 +0200 +++ /home/flo/review/1147149-python-cryptography-vectors/srpm-unpacked/python-cryptography-vectors.spec 2014-09-27 18:27:51.000000000 +0200 @@ -24,5 +24,7 @@ Test vectors for the cryptography package. - +The only purpose of this package is to be a building requirement for +python-cryptography, otherwise it has no use. Don’t install it unless +you really know what you are doing. %prep Requires -------- python-cryptography-vectors (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-cryptography-vectors: python-cryptography-vectors Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/cryptography-vectors/cryptography_vectors-0.5.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3537837ef31814fb25c082274a64042bf2c52b6108b99374d1eee505097ccf36 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3537837ef31814fb25c082274a64042bf2c52b6108b99374d1eee505097ccf36 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1147149 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
(In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #2) > Generic: > [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > ---> LICENSE is not installed You put it to the wrong item. If you read the correct point below, you would see "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." Pray, tell me, where is the LICENSE file hidden in the original tarball? matej@wycliff: cryptography_vectors-0.5.4 (master %)$ find . -name L\* matej@wycliff: cryptography_vectors-0.5.4 (master %)$ > [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. > ---> Your %changelog-entry should look like: > * Sat Sep 27 2014 YOUR NAME <NAME> - 0.5.4-1 Fixed http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-2.el7.src.rpm http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-cryptography-vectors.spec > [!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > ---> %doc is missing Lovely. And what should I put to that %doc section? > Generic: > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached > diff). > ---> see Diff below > See: (this test has no URL) Fixed.
Hi Matěj! What about this file https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/blob/master/LICENSE ? And yes, you are right was not in the tarball. BTW there is a new version 0.6. Cheers, Flo
(In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #4) > BTW there is a new version 0.6. I know about it, but I will rather get this version to Fedora, and then I can simply push new upgrade.
Hi Matěj! From https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text "Common licenses that require including their texts with all derivative works include ASL 2.0, EPL, BSD and MIT." Cheers, Flo
(In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #6) > Hi Matěj! > > From > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > > "Common licenses that require including their texts with all derivative > works include ASL 2.0, EPL, BSD and MIT." https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/1377 http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-cryptography-vectors.spec http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.el7.src.rpm
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: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 %doc. [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]: 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]: 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: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ---> https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/1377 [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. ---> 0.6 is the latest version [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. ---> upstream tarball does not include an own license text file [-]: 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. ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7741295 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc22.noarch.rpm python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc22.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-cryptography-vectors 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-cryptography-vectors (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-cryptography-vectors: python-cryptography-vectors Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/cryptography-vectors/cryptography_vectors-0.5.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3537837ef31814fb25c082274a64042bf2c52b6108b99374d1eee505097ccf36 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3537837ef31814fb25c082274a64042bf2c52b6108b99374d1eee505097ccf36 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1147149 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG ===== Solution ===== APPROVED
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-cryptography-vectors Short Description: Test vectors for the cryptography package Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/cryptography-vectors/ Owners: mcepl Branches: f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-cryptography-vectors Short Description: Test vectors for the cryptography package Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/cryptography-vectors/ Owners: mcepl Branches: f20 f21 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Built in Rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7879712
python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc20
python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc21
python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
Reopen for the upgrade required in bug 1114267 comment 23
python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc21
python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc20
Package python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc21: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc21' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15184/python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc21 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-cryptography-vectors New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: mcepl npmccallum
python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.el7
python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-cryptography-vectors-0.6.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.