Spec URL: http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~gygers/rpms/python-slowaes.spec SRPM URL: http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~gygers/rpms/python-slowaes-0.1a1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: An Implementation of AES in python used in the bitcoin client electrum Fedora Account System Username:gyger
This is my first package and I need a sponsor. I want to have electrum in fedora, as it is very useful. There is also a koji build and a copr repository: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8753884 https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/gyger/electrum/
This is an unofficial review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package doesn't contain BR: python2-devel or python3-devel You must be more specific about the python version when defining BR. - defattr is not needed in %files. - Maybe put PKG-INFO in %doc ? - Use versioned python macros. Unversioned macros are deprecated. - Probably %prep need to remove egg-info. - You should add egg-info files in %files. ===== 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. [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)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: 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. [?]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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]: 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. Python: [!]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [?]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [?]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Please see issues above. ===== 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. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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-slowaes-0.1a1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-slowaes-0.1a1-1.fc21.src.rpm python-slowaes.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python-slowaes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-slowaes: python-slowaes Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/slowaes/slowaes-0.1a1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 83658ae54cc116b96f7fdb12fdd0efac3a4e8c7c7064e3fac3f4a881aa54bf09 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 83658ae54cc116b96f7fdb12fdd0efac3a4e8c7c7064e3fac3f4a881aa54bf09
Find a fixed SPEC file and SRPMS. Spec URL: http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~gygers/rpms/python-slowaes.spec SRPM URL: http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~gygers/rpms/python-slowaes-0.1a1-2.fc21.src.rpm Fixed errors were all but: - queried upstream for LICENSE file but I don't think it will happen. (https://code.google.com/p/slowaes/issues/detail?id=21) The License is stated in the file header. - add egg info file in %files: See here https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Providing_Egg_Metadata_Using_Setuptools, it says the %{python2_sitelib}/* captures also .egg-info Everything was rebuild in the COPR Repository. A Koji build was run again: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8860643
- the python_sitelib definition should probably use the __python2 macros and not the __python macro - just removing the first line of aes.py might result in unintended changes when upstream removes the shebang, isn't it possible to add a pattern to sed?
Oh yes, I forgot that. Changed this now. Added also the generic script for the Shebang line, as my sed knowledge is not big enough to script this differently. Spec URL: http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~gygers/rpms/python-slowaes.spec SRPM URL: http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~gygers/rpms/python-slowaes-0.1a1-3.fc21.src.rpm New Build on copr: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/gyger/electrum/
Do you want to continue this review?
If someone would look at the review afterwards, I would check it for actuality. But yes, I'm still interested to get electrum into Fedora. I also got a list mail that unbundeling is not longer necessary, if this is the case it's perhaps better to have the library directly in electrum?
If you to continue with this package review I can take it
So this is still the actual version, what else would you need? I think this spec file is ready to be build. I don't have F22 yet, can the same src.rpm be used or to I have to install it? I need a sponsor for this.
I will take your review and I will be your sponsor to the packager group in Fedora. You must: 1. Pacth the license of this project or work with upstream to include the license file in the tarball. You must use the %license macro in %%files. 2. This is a really simple package, but your spec is out of date to current python packaging guidelines, as part of the move to python3 by default in Fedora there is not more python-%{name} packages, all python libs must be python2-%{name} and python3-%{name}. So you must provides a python2-{name} subpackage and use the python provides macro. 3. Fedora 21 will become end of life soon so should use the py2build and py2install macros. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python =================================== Also, so this is your firts package. I will ask you to do some informal reviews, note than I will need to take the review-request where you do informal reviews. Please see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process Share the links of the bugs than you will be chequing please.
Any update here?
Hey William, thank you for your offer. I was stuck on fedora 21 for quite a while, but a new computer, enough power for virtualization got me running on packaging this stuff again. Here the updated files with your inputs included. Spec URL: http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~gygers/rpms/python-slowaes.spec SRPM URL: http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~gygers/rpms/python-slowaes-0.1a1-5.fc23.src.rpm Description: An Implementation of AES in python used in the bitcoin client electrum Fedora Account System Username:gyger This is a requirement for electrum I need a sponsor too. Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13815220 (F23) ===== For the informal reviews, I will try to do some, but I can't promise yet as they are quite time consuming.
What is the update? Do you have done informal reviews? I am interested in getting Electrum and slowaes into Fedora.
Hey Jonny, I didn't find the time. Feel free to take over, you can use all the Files I have Provided here. They are free to use under what ever license you want to use them.
Ok, thanks for your feedback
I am not sure if I should create a new ticket or re-use this, anyway just let me know if I should create a new ticket. Here is an updated version based on the work of Samuel Gyger: Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/python-slowaes/python-slowaes.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/python-slowaes/python-slowaes-0.1a1-6.fc25.src.rpm Description: A pure Python AES implementation Fedora Account System Username: jonny Anyone that would like to do a formal review?
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16357891
Looks good, approved. Thing to keep in mind is the non-numeric version number. This is only allowed when they increment properly otherwise it can cause update issues. I couldn't find upstreams versioning policy so not sure if it is. I personally would include the license as a SOURCE, not patch it and I would use sed to remove the shebang. But this is ok. 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)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1187082-python-slowaes/licensecheck.txt [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. [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: 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 %license. [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]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: 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. [!]: %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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-slowaes-0.1a1-6.fc26.noarch.rpm python-slowaes-0.1a1-6.fc26.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python2-slowaes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python2-slowaes: python-slowaes python2-slowaes python2.7dist(slowaes) python2dist(slowaes) Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/slowaes/slowaes-0.1a1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 83658ae54cc116b96f7fdb12fdd0efac3a4e8c7c7064e3fac3f4a881aa54bf09 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 83658ae54cc116b96f7fdb12fdd0efac3a4e8c7c7064e3fac3f4a881aa54bf09 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1187082 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to Piotr Popieluch from comment #18) > Looks good, approved. Thanks! > Thing to keep in mind is the non-numeric version number. This is only > allowed when they increment properly otherwise it can cause update issues. I > couldn't find upstreams versioning policy so not sure if it is. I have a bad feeling that there are no versioning policy, the last commit was Mar 8, 2011 and there are no tags/branches in the SVN repo at code.google.com. There are no version info in aes.py (that is the only code in the package). Debian also use 0.1a1 as the version number. I am not sure where the version comes from, it might be the person who uploaded to https://pypi.python.org/pypi/slowaes. > I personally would include the license as a SOURCE, not patch it and I would > use sed to remove the shebang. But this is ok. I was thinking about the same, but I ended up with patches to make it more declarative what is our changes.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-slowaes